Trespass void after change of ownership?

Imagine someone were trespassed at the Aladdin before it became Planet Hollywood - circa 2004. The Aladdin subsequently became Planet Hollywood a few years later. More recently, the casino was sold again, and is now owned by Caesars. Would the original Aladdin trespass still hold at Planet Hollywood - which has since undergone an ownership change?

The statute says that you can't go " after having been warned by the owner or occupant thereof not to trespass". I would assume that since the current "owner or occupant" has not issued a trespass warning, then the person would be in the clear. But I am not a lawyer, and I wonder if an aggressive cop or security officer with little understanding of the law could interpret it to mean that a previous owner or occupant warning would be enough if files about such things survived the ownership change.

I am not a lawyer, but I do play one on TV. If you were trespassed at Aladdin you do not have to worry at Planet Hollywood.

I would think that the trespass charge belongs to the owner and not the property. Definitely, I would think that if the property changes its name and ownership, the trespass would not apply.

But let's think of three other changes:

(1) The ownership is kept, but the name is changed. So, for example, if you had a trespass from Imperial Palace, and you go in there under the Quad's name, which is still owned by Caesar's, what happens (I would think the trespass would still apply)

(2) The ownership is not kept, but the name remains the same. So for example, if you had a trespass for Treasure Island on March 19, 2009 (when MGM owned it), would it still apply on March 21, 2009 (when Ruffin owned it). (I think the trespass no longer applies).

(3) The ownership is bought out by another company but everything else remains the same.


The Nevada trespassing law under NRS 207.200 outlaws the following actions:

1.Going onto another persons’ property with the intent to annoy the owner or occupant or to commit a crime there, or
2.Willfully going on or remaining on another person’s property after having been warned by the owner or occupant not to trespass.

We asked Bob Nersesian this question on one of his two recent appearances on my radio show. However, I forgot what he said.

Quote: Wizard

We asked Bob Nersesian this question on one of his two recent appearances on my radio show. However, I forgot what he said.

He said that the trespass is void under new ownership.

Quote: boymimbo

2.Willfully going on or remaining on another person’s property after having been warned by the owner or occupant not to trespass.

The 'occupant' clearly applies to a tenant or person who pays the rent in a private house or even a store front in a mall. What if ownership changed but the management company remained in place. I'm thinking of when Barbary Coast changed to Bill's Gambling Hall.

Or consider a smaller level of 'occupant', what if the security guard who issued you the warning still works there, regardless of ownership change. It's owner OR occupant and the security guard is the one who issued the warning.

I'd still stay away. I must admit that I do not have this problem since I haven't been trespassed.

Quote: s2dbaker

The 'occupant' clearly applies to a tenant or person who pays the rent in a private house or even a store front in a mall. What if ownership changed but the management company remained in place. I'm thinking of when Barbary Coast changed to Bill's Gambling Hall.

Or consider a smaller level of 'occupant', what if the security guard who issued you the warning still works there, regardless of ownership change. It's owner OR occupant and the security guard is the one who issued the warning.

I'd still stay away. I must admit that I do not have this problem since I haven't been trespassed.

Both the management company and the security guard in the examples you sited are representing the owner. If ownership changes, prior actions are null and void. Of course that is not to say that you aren't going to encounter a new set of actions if the same personnel remains and you are known to them.

What are people's opinions in the cases of Harrah's/Caesar's?

If someone was trespassed under "Harrahs Entertainment Inc." and told not to go onto "Harrah's Inc." properties, is that now void due to the fact the company is now Caesar's?

deleted

Quote: PGBuster

What are people's opinions in the cases of Harrah's/Caesar's?

If someone was trespassed under "Harrahs Entertainment Inc." and told not to go onto "Harrah's Inc." properties, is that now void due to the fact the company is now Caesar's?

You should listen to the archives of Wizards show GWAE. Gaming specialist Attorney Bob Nersesian, addressed this very issue in one of his two recent appearances. The Caesar's Empire is very problematic because there is no one parent company as many people think. There are a bunch of different 'holdings' type companies and employees may not work for the actual company that is listed as ownership. It is all very confusing, but Mr Nersesian, believes that not only is a trespass not applicable at other Caesar's Properties, which are almost certain to be legally under a different holding corp, but because of the way they are set up, may not be valid at the very location doing the trespass, because people doing the trespass and casino could be under different holding companies. In other words, they may have screwed themselves by setting up these different holding companies, I guess for tax purposes. lol Of course it will take money and court challenges to find that out.