They had stopped going to the club and still expected somebody to cover for them in the pool?

Nah, I don't think so.

They didn't deserve a nickel in my opinion. They're very lucky that one guy gave them 100 grand cuz they definitely didn't deserve it.

Just another example of why I don't like pools; I wonder how much the lawyers grabbed on this deal?

I AGREE...Bottom line, if you pay to play, then you get a share if the pool wins. If you miss a couple draws, then you are OUT for those draws.

I'm sorry but when I was running a pool I told everyone "I will not spot you for the draw, if you want to participate I need the $$ by this date/time"

If they wanted to participat that bad, they should have made a special trip to the person collenting the money to drop off cash. I had people do this on several occasions. I even allowed some of them to paypal me the $$ since they were out of town, but at least they paid.

I don't think these people deserve any of it.

It would be different if it was a long time pool player that participated EVERY week, and then that player had a terrible accident and ended up in the hospital and thats why they couldnt play. But, in this situation thats not the case.

Judge B$Rizzle says "Case closed, you dont get chit"

If Michael and Catherine Clancy had continued to reimburse their friends as they continue to play the lottery and won nothing then they might have had a case.  How anyone could think their friends would ensure that they would be in the pool every time without any expectations of reimbursements is beyond me.  Their story is not sad but stupid and stupid doesn't pay.

No pay , no win.

this never should have seen a courtroom. they are being unfair to the people who paid by contesting this. stay out of pools. this happens too often when the group takes one down. which isn't often but there always seems to be a problem when a group hits.

I've seen enough episodes of People's Court, Judge Judy and others to know better...Written agreement...PERIOD !

I agree with the judge and the members of this forum. Justice was served.

It makes me upset that the winning group had to incur attorney fees defending

 what was clearly their money. This case should have been thrown out at hearing!

I doubt if their friends would have signed an agreement like the one they thought they had, that is split their future lottery winnings with them even though they contribute nothing to the cost of tickets.

agree w/ the judge's dicision, but don't like her attitude,she said the 21 participants did't earn the money,well maybe they did't use hammers, shovels & trucks,but they used their $ earned somehow and risked them on this game, the plantiff did not.i went fishing on party boat today where everyone on board has the option of joining the betting pool, $5 ea. the guy next to me declined,he caught the biggest doormat ,the angler w/ 2nd biggest flattie won the pool.

Right on Ridge. I hear about it on occasion "I was in that lottery pool too!" You don't pay,you don't play!.

Wow - More nutty plaintiffs!

A never ending stream of entertainment.

I had missed that line where they stopped going, and so before reading this I was feeling bad for them.

But, since it doesn't look like it was that they simply missed putting in their money for one draw (which I assumed), I don't really feel sorry for them not getting a share of the winnings. Seriously, if you leave a pool/club and then expect to be brought back in for that one draw that won, you need to get a slapping to bring you back to reality.

Did we read the same article? Here's what it said in the one I read:

"While the Clancys regularly contributed when jackpots exceeded $10 million, they had stopped going to the club and weren't present when money was collected for the Nov. 23, 2007, draw."

They were contributing to the cost of tickets, but didn't pay ahead of time for that particular drawing.  If they weren't there when money was collected for previous drawings but contibuted their share for (losing)  tickets after the fact I would see that as an implicit agreement with the others. Unfortunately the article says nothing about what happened for any other drawings, so I don't know whether they previously paid before the drawings even if they weren't at the club, or if the group accepted payment after the fact.  As always, pools should have a written contract that unambiguously spells out the requirements.