Connecticut National Bank of Hartford v. Kommit
Massachusetts Appeals Court
577 N.E.2d 639 (1991)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
Richard Kommit (defendant), a resident of Massachusetts, held a Mastercharge card pursuant to an agreement with Connecticut National Bank of Hartford (the bank) (plaintiff). Kommit traveled to a casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey, where he withdrew $5,500 from his Mastercharge card using an ATM located in the gambling area of the casino. Kommit later refused to pay the $5,500 to the bank, contending that Massachusetts substantive law applied to the transaction, and under that law, debts relating to gambling were unenforceable. The bank argued that New Jersey substantive law applied to the debt, and because the underlying gambling was legal under New Jersey law, the debt was enforceable. The bank also contended that the Mastercharge credit agreement was governed by a choice-of-law clause specifying application of Connecticut law, which deferred to the law of the forum of the specific transaction. The bank filed a motion for summary judgment to enforce the debt. In response, Kommit filed an affidavit in which he claimed that the bank knew or should have known that the borrowed funds would be used for gambling purposes, because the bank allowed access to credit from an ATM located centrally within an Atlantic City casino. The trial court granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment, and Kommit appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Perretta, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.