No surprises here!

This is one of the major reason I won't join lottery pools. It seems like you have to go through so much hassel if your group wins. I rather just play by myself.

Oh boy! Here comes one of the reasons that agreements should be made in writing.

I'm with you TSC,

I sometimes think that if I joined a pool with "naturally Lucky people," I'd be okay,  but I have never done it.  Now I'm glad I didn't.  This  lawsuit is enough proof for me.  There will be enough issues with family and friends that will call out of the cracks.  The one sister I speak to, doesn't believe in the lottery even though she knows I play religiously and my few friends don't know I play.  I still never say that I will help family and friends, so if I didn WHEN I win, it will be a surprise to all.

Wrong! Not should be! All Agreements are to be Mandatory for any POOL of any size! The Agreement is to be signed each time you pay/join in the pool! You Pay and then you sign the Mandatory Agreement!

No Pay, No Sign, No Play! End of Story!

Lottery pools suck for a variety of reasons.Being sued by jealous people that didn't kick in any money to the pool is just one of the reasons.Having to share a jackpot is another reason.

The four further claim they joined with the others in a pool for the Dec. 9 Mega Millions drawing from which some cash winnings allegedly were then used to purchase tickets for the Dec. 12 drawing. The co-workers had the winning numbers for the $207 million Dec. 12 drawing.

The four said they were out of the office and unavailable to contribute to the office pool for the Dec. 12 drawing.

Because they participated in the previous draw, I would have included them, to avoid any hassle in obtaining my jackpot winnings.  It was such a large jackpot,  in fact more money than they would have ever earned in their entire lives.   They would have been all set,  now they all have to wait for a judge to determine who gets what.   

Let this be a lesson to all who play in a lottery pool!!!! Always have an agreement and always have the names of the people in the pool and the amount paid BEFORE the drawing. I think most people that play in pools never actually think they are going to win.

I had a good working pool going at my last job. Now that I switched jobs I no longer do it, not because of sharing the prize but because of all the work involved. Before each drawing I would photo copy all the tickets bought by the group, there was twenty of us. I did narrow it down to just six sets of copies. One of the rules was that all small prizes get banked towards a large jackpot such as the one that just played (As it appears they did). Because of that rule there was always money in case one or more of the players was out for some reason. It wouldn't have been fair to lose out because you were sick or on vacation we thought. And that person made up for it the following week. I'm not sure if theirs was one time thing or not, though according to the article, the money to purchase the tickets were from the prevouis winning (NOV 9th) of which they did contribute. Sooooo... It sounds like a weekly pool to me.

     This is the reason I've never been in a lottery pool.   I feel for the winners.  They have to pay the legal

fees.

Whenever I played in a pool, when I was off, I made sure that my money was in BEFORE I left.

And when I ran a pool, I made sure that all regular players got asked.

Often when I knew that they were regular players, I often kicked in for them. I never had a problem collecting.

MarkP

From my perspective,i think the four are solely entitle to their shares of winning

for the fact,they stuck it in when they did not win anything.Why cant the money be share evenly amongst them

when whoever the head of their pool never thoght this life changing event was going to occur?

With this economy,their lawyers are going to fight to get 40%

of that pie.

GREED IS A HORRIBLE THING.

Don't let this happen to you! If you're going to run a pool put the rules in writing covering all the bases. Also, don't roll small winners into future draws.

Honestly, I don't think the plaintiffs have a case. The way I see it, you're only included in on a pool if you put in the money for the drawing in question. They didn't for that drawing.

In this case, I think the plaintiffs may have a good case (which is different than an easily provable case) for partial shares. If they participated in the 12/9 drawing and winnings from that drawing were used to buy tickets for the 12/12 drawing, then they were de facto participants in the 12/12 drawing.  The only question would be how much they participated, and how the winnings should be divided.

If all 19 people (the original 15, and the 4 plaintiffs) normally played, each one would own 1/19th of any winnings from a drawing in which they participated. If the 15 put in $1 each  and also used $10 in winnings from the previous drawing, they would have bought 25 tickets for the drawing that got them the jackpot. In that case the defendants should each be entitled to a 1/19th share of the 40% that could be attributed to the extra $10 in tickets.

Proving an oral contract to share in all winnings, even if they weren't around to chip in before the drawing is obviously difficult. Proving that money from a previous win was used could be much easier.  As always, this is another good demonstration of why pools should have a written agreement that spells out all of the details, and in this case the details seem to include winning with  tickets funded from a previous win. IMHO, settling on a set of numbers ahead of time is the only sensible way to run a pool, so that it will be clear whether or not any of wining tickets belong to the pool. Making photocopies of tickets is all well and good, but may not count for much if a QP wins a modest amount that then contributes to a bigger win that some people  are left out of. OTOH, not requiring  people to play for every drawing, and pay well ahead of time, is really stupid and begs for a lawsuit if a big prize is won.

Sparky, have you though about switching to de-caf?  There's nothing mandatory about pool agreements. They're certainly a really good idea, but they're not mandatory. Players are free to risk losing a big chunk to lawyers because they weren't clever enough to thoink thisg through. The poster you quoted had if exactly right: the lawsuit is another example of the reason that  the agreements *should* be in writing.

I have to agree with KY on this...If at any time money from winnings was used for future tickets then a claim can be made.  If at any time a collection of money was made after the actual drawing, then you have set the rules, and that makes sense to a "reasonable person"!  The original winners should meet discuss if these claims have ever happened in past drawings and decide whether to fight or add the 4 in,  at least some fees will be saved if they choose to settle,  If not, and the above claims happened at anytime with any type of consistancey then I would say that there odds of winning are going to be less than 50%... 

Hey Quick Draw Mc Graw,

1) Have you ever thought to sit down and think before opening mouth?

2) I said Agreements are to be Mandatory (and of course in writing) if you wish to be apart of that Pool! Any agreement better be in writing, but any layman would automatically think it would be if so many people are to sign it after paying their money!

I think the kettle calling the pot black is the one who really needs the de-caf before shooting off the mouth uncontrollable! 

I always play by myself. I never promise to take care of anyone. That does not mean that I won't help some people in my life. Always be careful what you say to anyone. I do know someone that would probably try to be entitled to my winnings if I were to win Powerball. This is an excellent reason that everyone should have the oppourtunity to be anonymous.

Sound familiar?  https://www.lotterypost.com/news/135957

Did anybody not see this coming?

I agree,you don't have to go through all the problems,i 'm using a system to beat the odds hopefully i will win very soon.

I saw it coming and I knew a few others did as well. I think most of them better keep working because by the time this possibly gets worked out they might have even less of the JP winnings left.

Here's a New Year resolution for all Mega-Millions pools, count the number of draws for the year 2009, multiply that by the amount to be played for each drawing, from each player. Elect one or two from the group to be in charge. get the total amount from each player up front before the first drawing. Cash and retain any small prizes. If no jackpot was won everyone's payment for 2010 will be reduced equally by the winnings. Put it in writing, Everyone agrees to the rules or don't join, also if someone wants out midway pay him/her off. Alas if there are groups out there that can't trust each other then you shouldn't be in the pool in the first place.

Another office pool, another lawsuit.

It seems a bit unlikely that the people in the pool would refuse them their share if this was a legit case.

The pool even had no problem with 1 person getting two shares, because he put an extra dollar in for his mom.

That would make it seem clear that the pool required you to actually put in 1 dollar per share for a given drawing. Also, since these people each put in a dollar for this pool, any winnings that did roll over would give the other 4 a smaller share of the pie, not a full share. Bad day to miss work, move on with life.

Regardless of how this case turns out, it is just another black mark against office pools.

Whenever I run an office pool, I write up an explicit legal contract that all who play have to sign. It says that the pool is only for that drawing, that only those who have signed the agreement are entitled to any prizes, that any prizes won will be paid out, not rolled over, and that I will have the sole decision on whether the money will be taken up front or paid out as an annuity.

I don't buy personal tickets on a day I do an office pool, and I keep all of these contracts in a locked file cabinet in case we win someday and someone that played a year ago tries to pull this crap.

I think 41 million still leaves over $ 160 million ,  they are all co-workers who frequently contributed to the pool, but were unavailable that day.  However, even in their absence, pool money was available with which to purchase the winning ticket.

My opinion is:  quit making me sick and share.  To be honest they should also quit their job and make openings for alot of their fellow unemployed people.

I agree with the idea of sharing and with the 'winnings' from the prior play coming into account I think they will receive something. 

I also agree that in todays economy they should leave there jobs so others who are either unemployed or not making much can get access to those jobs.  The winner’s new job should be how to live the rest of their lives on the money they won.

i 'm using a system to beat the odds hopefully i will win very soon.

You, me and about 50 other LP members are thinking they've got a system to beat the odds.

The cash option was around 146M. Quit making you sick? Are you one of the people suing? After everything is said and done many of them probably won't be able to quit anything once they finish with taxes and now paying lawyers. If you think that their quitting is just going to bring openings for someone else then you're kidding yourself, I'd bet most of those jobs won't be replaced. Not to mention the problems that could cause for the city to have 14-18 employees quit at once.  If these people win then after taxes everyone but one player would end up with about 4.5M, that is if it's divided up equally, which these people bringing the suit clearly don't want to do if that amount is in reference to the cash option which has already been chosen. 41M divided between the four bringing this suit would equal around 6M, so who's the greedy ones?

the 41 million lawsuit is probably based on the original 200+ million prize

I don't know.  The article did not elaborate. 

Given the facts available, yes, I find it sickening that a lawsuit has to be filed.  As previously stated, the pool did have money available during that day's absence of the entire pool with which to purchase the winning ticket.  And they are all frequent pool participants. 

I do not necessarily mean they should quit their job at once, but rather with proper notice and re-hiring.  If the group of workers has a restraining order on other workers which originally was caused over their temporary absence, they should not belong in the workplace, in my opinion.   

That's right.

Lottery Pools are a bad idea this stuff happens quite a bit I would never participate in one!!!

This group of city employees which made themselves public is now getting sued by jealous co-workers who played in previous drawings. 

Lessons to be learned:

#1.  Buy lottery tickets alone

#2.  Play the lottery in a state where you can be anonymous

Seems like the perfect plan to me.  Where am I wrong?

quit making me sick and share

If the winners weren't planning on paying out these other 4 "members" it was probably because the 4 were lazy for the week and thought they'd save a few bucks since the pool would most likely not win anyway.  If they truely were out of the office when money was collected, they could have easily sent an email or called to say they would gladly make up the money next time they were in, and any group would be more than willing to consider them 'in' for the drawing in that case. 

You think you should pay out anyone who thinks they belong in the pool when they didn't even pay up for the week?  You would be paying out A LOT more than 4 people if it was that easy to get money from a group that won.

It's simple, you want to collect for the week, you pay for the week. 

"Lottery Pools are a bad idea this stuff happens quite a bit I would never participate in one!!!"

Yeah, I'll bet they're really sorry they ever formed that pool.

"Regardless of how this case turns out, it is just another black mark against office pools."

They formed an office pool and they won about $145 million. If they have to share it 19 ways instead of 15, and they lose a few million to legal fees they'll still pocket more money that they would have earned during their entire lives. What this is, is another black mark against stupid people. People that should have shared in the prize missing out on at least a part of what  they should have gotten. People who shouldn't have to share losing money to lawyers. Maybe a bit of both. Writing out an agreement that covers most of the details isn't that difficult, but if you're not smart enough to do it, you're probably going to lose out when you win. Regardless of how it turns out, they'll still be way ahead of where they would have been without a pool.

I wouldn't mind being in an office pool.  The more tickets, the better chances of winning.  But I'd be darn sure I contributed to the pot every week and had a receipt. 

As far as splitting the jackpot 19 ways instead of 15, I agree with KY Floyd. They'll still be a lot better off than they were before!

They should have had a written agreement, so I believe the 4 coworkers have a valid lawsuit.  There is power in numbers and 4 people are making the same claim, so it's possible they're telling the truth.  After all, if one person goes to court and says "that's the guy who grabbed by wallet" you might give the defendant the benefit of the doubt.  But when 4 different people accuse the same thief of pickpocketing, then a jury begins to wonder if perhaps he's really guilty of some wrongdoing.

BTW whoever writes that walking away with over $9.6M (before tax) isn't a lot money must be very wealthy or lives in a fantasy world. Chances are that the interest alone is more than the winners would ever make in a lifetime.

This is why i really don't like lottery pools, i did it maybe once or twice over the years.

I find it unlikely that a verbal agreement was made in light of one man putting in two dollars and getting two shares worth of money from the pot.

MegaMillions only pays out in amounts of 2, 3, 7, 10, 150, 10k, 250k.  So I would consider anything under 150 to be a insignificant winning ticket.  Since the number of people playing is more than the amount being paid....would you really want to be paid in change?  So it only makes sense to play it forward to help the next pot stand better odds, or packrat it away and pay it out after enough has been made to pay people a reasonable sum.  Or give people a "free play", soon as they got 15 or 19 or whatever dollars won, they spend it and everyone plays for free on one pot.

But, the thing that just doesn't sit right with me is that if they had an "established" lottery pool...you're going to have people who only play when the pot gets big...like 100 mil or more.  So let's say all 19 people played on Dec 9th, and someone else hit the lottery not their group...but they won something let's say 10 bucks.  Then the "established" players play on the 12th, the 15 that are being sued...and they won another 10 bucks.  So they play that forward on top of their 15 dollars they put in each pot to make 25 tickets.  Does that mean the people who played two pots ago are still entitled to the winnings?  And if it does, then the "contribution" should be taken into account.

Which these people bringing suit feel they deserve a share equal to the rest of the people who put in a full dollars worth of buying power toward the pot.  When in reality, they put in something less than a dollar and if everyone else played both pots, they put in more than a dollar.

I think if they were really serious about this agreement, the sought monetary value would reflect that kind of thinking instead of digging into the other pool members contributions.

You could say, the people who played both pots put in two dollars toward the winning pot.  While the people who only played Dec 9th only put in one dollar.  Which if they were constant players I don't think anyone else in the group would have a problem, but I suspect they weren't.

I am curious about how the courts handle this though.  Because let's say you did win, and someone falsely tried to claim you made a verbal agreement with them.  Say you win 200 mil, and the guy wants half.  So 100 mil before taxes, the court would probably put that money into some sort of holding account until it was resolved.  And money battles usually take forever, but there's just no way I'd let someone try to sue me to get a out of court settlement especially when it's baseless.  So, that kind of money earns quite a bit of interest daily and if this guy is found undeserving of the money by the courts.  Do the courts take into account that this guy just cost you months and months of interest on money that was rightfully yours?

I have to wonder because if people can just tie up your money until you get so sick of waiting you pay them off...what's to stop them from doing it?  I have to wonder if a nice counter-claim would be loss of interest on the money they caused to go into holding, because ....couple grand a day in interest having to be paid in return would financially ruin most people.

Hi carnifex, welcome to Lottery Post!

I'll say it again, gambling should always be a solo endeavor.

Nothing wrong with an office pool. Just put everything in writing.  Be clear about the rules.

If they decide to buy tickets with any small amount won, put it in writing.

"Any proceeds from winning tickets totaling $50.00 or less from a drawing are used to purchase tickets for the next drawing the pool participates in.  Use of winning ticket proceeds from a previoius drawing does not make the participants from the previous drawing that had proceeds from winning tickets eligible for any prize in any future drawing.  Only individuals who contribute new money (new money is defined as money not won from a previous drawing) to a drawing are eligible for any prize winnings. "

It is not that f*cking difficult people.  It took me less han 5 minutes to write that.

It's a bit more f-ing difficult than you thought, and it took you less than 5 minutes to get it wrong. If you let me play in the pool for tonight's drawing and we win, some of that money is mine. Period. If that money is spent on tickets for the next drawing, I now own a portion of any winnings from that drawing. Period. Contracts are held to be invalid, in whole or in part, every day, and you've written one that would never hold up in court.

Allowing  people to choose to be in or out of individual draws in a "regular" pool  is begging for trouble almost as much as if you hadn't bothered with a written agreement in the first place. If the pool for the next drawing has different people than the pool for the previous drawing it *needs* to be treated as a completely new pool. The effect of that is that you've got to create a new pool for every drawing, which is pretty ridiculous. The sensible solution is to have a standing pool with the same memebrs for every drawing. You also need to collect the money far enough in advance that there is time to notify somebody that they have been dropped from the pool if they don't pay by the deadline. The proper way to notify them is by certified mail, along with a copy sent by certified mail to the pool administrator *before* any tickets are purchased. The copy to the administrator should be kept unopened in case  you find yourself in court with the ex-member who claims they  are entitled to a share.

Hello there.  Yeah long post to start with but, I live pretty close to Piqua and all of this just bugs me.  Not involved with it anyway besides hearing about it on the news and people talking about it.  Really don't think it's a fair shake for the winners to have people who don't contributed steadily to have their winnings withheld until it's over.  On the other hand, if there is an agreement, what they are suing for just doesn't make sense in a reasonable context.  Because their lack of contribution to it....the dollar that might have bought the winning ticket could have come from the guy who put in two dollars or anyone of the people who put in a dollar.  And treating as though they are entitled to a full share of it just doesn't sit right with me.

Plus I was hoping someone here would have some knowledge of how the withheld money is handled.  Knowing that money can be tied up for years having seen my parents have to deal with my aunt over my grandmother's estate.  I figured a wrongful case brought against them might result in the chance for countersuit or perhaps the courts take action with the money and try to have it earning interest while it's decided.  Was curious.