## Facts

- Connecticut National Bank of Hartford issued a Mastercharge card to Richard Kommit and his wife, Massachusetts residents, under a credit agreement.
- In Atlantic City, New Jersey, Richard Kommit used the card on multiple dates to withdraw a total of $5,500 from an ATM located inside a casino’s gambling area (“the pit”).
- Kommit submitted an affidavit stating the ATM was situated in the pit and was intended to advance funds for gambling.
- The Kommits refused to repay, asserting the debt arose from money knowingly lent for gambling and was therefore void.
- The bank sought to enforce the debt, arguing New Jersey law permitted such casino-related credit because casino gambling was legal there.

## Issues

1. Under Massachusetts choice-of-law principles, whether New Jersey’s casino-credit statute governed enforceability of the credit-card advances made at an Atlantic City casino.
2. Whether summary judgment was improper because a genuine dispute existed as to whether the bank knowingly lent money for gambling.

## Decision

- The Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed the summary judgment for the bank and remanded.
- New Jersey law was not controlling merely because the withdrawals occurred in New Jersey.
- A material factual dispute existed on whether the bank knew the advances were intended for gambling, precluding summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- In Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey, a contract to repay money knowingly lent for gambling is void, absent a specific statutory exception.
- Massachusetts choice-of-law rules do not require application of another state’s law when doing so would conflict with the strong public policy of Massachusetts or another substantially interested state.
- When statutory invalidity depends on the lender’s knowledge of a gambling purpose, evidence permitting an inference of such knowledge (including the location and alleged function of a casino ATM) creates a triable issue that bars summary judgment.

## Conclusion

Because New Jersey’s casino-credit exception did not automatically govern this multi-state credit relationship and because the bank’s knowledge of the gambling purpose was genuinely disputed, the Appeals Court held the debt could not be enforced on summary judgment and returned the case for further proceedings.


Connecticut Nat'l Bank of Hartford v. Kommit, 577 N.E.2d 639 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991)