Question of the Day - 26 June 2025

Yes they are, but in defense of the calendar, some gambling debts aren't enforceable. It doesn't justify the blanket statement on the June 3rd page, but it does qualify it a bit. 

To wit: In Nevada, gambling debts are enforceable if they're evidenced by a credit instrument, such as a casino marker. When a marker is issued by a casino, the associated debt is legally enforceable and can be pursued through civil and even criminal means. 

However, debts not evidenced by a credit instrument are, depending on the circumstances, jurisdiction, or nature of the debt, void and unenforceable. 

Those include debts from illegal or unregulated gambling, such as unlicensed bookmakers, underground casinos, and unregulated online-gambling platforms, none of which are enforced by the law. In addition, if the debt isn't properly documented (e.g., if the marker is lost or destroyed and no evidence of the debt exists), it might not be enforceable.

The enforcement of other debts might be questionable under certain defenses. For example, if a gambler can prove intoxication to the point of being unaware of the legal consequences of signing a marker and that the casino was aware of the intoxication, the debt could be void. This defense relies on common-law principles that a contract may be null if one party lacks the capacity to understand it. Or if a gambler can demonstrate that the casino engaged in fraudulent practices, misrepresented the terms of the credit agreement, or coerced the gambler into signing a marker, the contract could be deemed non-binding.

What about bankruptcy? Gambling debts can sometimes be discharged in bankruptcy, but this isn't a given. If a debtor files for bankruptcy and the gambling debt is deemed a "luxury" debt (e.g., incurred without intent to repay, such as charging large amounts to a credit card while unemployed), creditors may challenge the discharge. However, if the debt isn't contested by the creditor (casino) or doesn't meet the criteria for non-dischargeability, it may be forgiven by bankruptcy.

So though we'd certainly take issue with the gross generalization made by the calendar, it's not entirely wrong.