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.