vendman1
vendman1
Joined: Mar 12, 2012
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 1034
March 26th, 2015 at 7:07:32 PM permalink
That's exactly how I picture AC politics. Thanks Ace.
jerrysnj
jerrysnj
Joined: Jan 8, 2015
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 97
March 28th, 2015 at 7:09:14 AM permalink
An article in today's AC Press says that Stockton knew of the covenant as it was in the contract but went ahead with the sale with that pending. Seems like an epic mistake by Stockton.
http://m.pressofatlanticcity.com/communities/atlantic-city_pleasantville_brigantine/contract-shows-stockton-knew-showboat-issue-was-still-in-effect/article_b7c59348-d4f0-11e4-a7ff-179ca561e77b.html?mode=jqm
vendman1
vendman1
Joined: Mar 12, 2012
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 1034
March 28th, 2015 at 7:38:03 AM permalink
Quote: jerrysnj

An article in today's AC Press says that Stockton knew of the covenant as it was in the contract but went ahead with the sale with that pending. Seems like an epic mistake by Stockton.



Wow...assuming that's correct. Somebody is getting fired. Or should. But it's jersey so someone will probably get a 6 figure gov't job instead.
ACMama
ACMama
Joined: Jan 8, 2015
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 54
March 28th, 2015 at 9:03:12 AM permalink
Yes, somebody screwed up. Maybe I should come out of retirement and school these young 'runs in how to do a commercial closing. Unbelievable.
I give this post an hour. Tee Hee!
dave12038457
dave12038457
Joined: Aug 16, 2014
  • Threads: 19
  • Posts: 261
March 30th, 2015 at 3:01:40 AM permalink
It is my understanding that the Taj's biggest concern is underage students drinking/gambling on their premises.
Perhaps Stockton can enact a 1 strike and your out policy in regards to underage casino visits?
GWAE
GWAE
Joined: Sep 20, 2013
  • Threads: 93
  • Posts: 9854
March 30th, 2015 at 5:43:14 AM permalink
Quote: vendman1

Wow...assuming that's correct. Somebody is getting fired. Or should. But it's jersey so someone will probably get a 6 figure gov't job instead.



isn't that something that should be disclosed as a seller? Or is it the buyers due diligence to figure it out?
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed. I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
MrV
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
  • Threads: 310
  • Posts: 6775
March 30th, 2015 at 7:32:53 AM permalink
Ironically, the buyer gambled and appears to have lost.
"What, me worry?"
vendman1
vendman1
Joined: Mar 12, 2012
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 1034
March 30th, 2015 at 9:31:30 AM permalink
Quote: GWAE

isn't that something that should be disclosed as a seller? Or is it the buyers due diligence to figure it out?



I don't know I'm not a real estate attorney. But I would think you are right, the seller would have some responsibility to disclose it. I really think it's possible that the agreement was signed so long ago (the 80's) that no one working on the deal (on either side) was aware it existed. At least I hope so. The alternative is gross incompetence (as opposed to a simple oversight).

Either way it typifies the mess that is AC. I for one miss the Showboat. It had a casual low roller vibe i liked, and was the easiest of the CET properties for beach access.
Venthus
Venthus
Joined: Dec 10, 2012
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 1055
March 30th, 2015 at 12:41:26 PM permalink
Quote: vendman1

I don't know I'm not a real estate attorney. But I would think you are right, the seller would have some responsibility to disclose it. I really think it's possible that the agreement was signed so long ago (the 80's) that no one working on the deal (on either side) was aware it existed. At least I hope so. The alternative is gross incompetence (as opposed to a simple oversight).

Either way it typifies the mess that is AC. I for one miss the Showboat. It had a casual low roller vibe i liked, and was the easiest of the CET properties for beach access.



Not an RE attorney, but I've worked in the field before. Under a normal situation, the selling agent or representative would have a legal obligation to disclose this arrangement, since it clearly would be considered a material fact, if nothing else. There're a few ways around it, but those are giant red flags and better off used for specific situations (such as transfer of a known quantity, like transferring title of the house to an heir while still alive to avoid estate taxes). If it was intentionally undisclosed, then there's grounds for a suit based on misrepresentation. If it was unintentional, then there's a case for gross negligence.

However, according to the article posted above, "Stockton University officials were aware when they purchased the Showboat Casino from Caesars Entertainment that a covenant on the site that required the property be used for a first-class casino hotel was still in effect." A lot of these agreements are subject to the 'secret' clause of "If anybody cares or notices" though... and my guess is that they were betting on picking up a bargain, subject to this.
vendman1
vendman1
Joined: Mar 12, 2012
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 1034
March 31st, 2015 at 8:22:41 AM permalink
Quote: Venthus

Not an RE attorney, but I've worked in the field before. Under a normal situation, the selling agent or representative would have a legal obligation to disclose this arrangement, since it clearly would be considered a material fact, if nothing else. There're a few ways around it, but those are giant red flags and better off used for specific situations (such as transfer of a known quantity, like transferring title of the house to an heir while still alive to avoid estate taxes). If it was intentionally undisclosed, then there's grounds for a suit based on misrepresentation. If it was unintentional, then there's a case for gross negligence.

However, according to the article posted above, "Stockton University officials were aware when they purchased the Showboat Casino from Caesars Entertainment that a covenant on the site that required the property be used for a first-class casino hotel was still in effect." A lot of these agreements are subject to the 'secret' clause of "If anybody cares or notices" though... and my guess is that they were betting on picking up a bargain, subject to this.



Thanks for the insight. That makes some sense. So you think Stockton was hoping no one at the Taj would remember, or care, that they had a covenant requiring Showboat to operate as a casino. Seems like a big risk to me.

  • Jump to: