Two workers in lottery pool sue over $118 million ticket

That jackpot was bought by a $9 that was won from a previous draw. Its not hard math.

The plaintiffs DO NOT deserve an equal share with the others because they only contributed

to the jp via a previous win of $9. But this is just me being rational. Their lawyers will argue that

absent a written agreement, the JP should be divided EQUALLY among all the members. Ouch! Double ouch!

People who are in charge of pools don't understand and outline the rules. people who play in pools don't understand the rules. I stopped contributing to pools at work because of this particular scenario and many, many others. I can see conflicts but some people are just blind or refuse to see the problem with inconsistent lottery pools.     besides, I may give but I'm not sharing.

Reality is... these JackPot winners SHOULD NOT be liable to split the jackpot with the other NON-participants. The Roll over money that existed should simply be paid out according to percentage of the Lottery Pool to the 2 "players" that were in the pool previously. So $9.00 divided by number of players for that draw is what SHOULD be paid out to those individuals who were NOT a part of the JackPot winning draw. 

If these Lottery Players who DID NOT participate were so concerned about NOT being included, why didn't they say ANYTHING on Thursday when the ORIGINAL collections would take place on prior draws to those who were in charge of the Lottery Pool? Apparentley they had NO qualms about NOT putting money in when it WASN'T asked for on Thursday because it was apparently collected on Wednesday! Even though they MAY not have been informed of the unusual Wednesday collection. Reality is, the NON-participants may have possibly thought "ah, ill just skip this draw and keep my money in my pocket for now instead of participating in this drawing", thinking that they might just be throwing there money away for this upcoming drawing. 

It's not like they were making waves for NOT being able to participate PRIOR to the FRIDAY Mega Millions draw. If anything, maybe the one buying the tickets bought them a day earlier possibly due to the Jackpot excitement of $118,000,000 or just NOT being able to purchase the tickets on Thursday because of other plans or a combination of both. Who Knows... 

All I know, based on the common sense of Property Ownership, the 2 non-participants should receive their share of the $9.00 winnings and that's it! Simple as that. You don't participate, YOU DON'T WIN! 

Lottery Pools should NOT be obigated to make sure everyone who were in previous draws are magically included in future draws based upon past participation. That's just not fair. What's fair is that all who ARE part of the pool and want to remain A PART of the pool, pony over the dough when required or in worst case scenario before the drawing occurs. 

Crying about it AFTER the Jackpot was won, well, that's just greed on the non-participants part. 

This is the same as if you played the same numbers every drawing for 10 years, but, failed to play them the night they actually were drawn. Should the lottery be responsible to pay out based upon previous participation with the winning numbers? Of course not, and so it is in this case that the jackpot should be paid to those WHO PARTICIPATED FOR THAT SPECIFIC DRAWING! SIMPLE!

This is EXACTLY why I WANT NOTHING to do with Lottery Pools! 

They have legit claim to equal share. The $9 from the previous pool is their participation in the jackpot drawing. One could claim that had that $9 not existed, they would not have won it, especially since it was already established that the money won from the previous drawing would go towards the next. Sounds like a slam dunk case to me.

I think they should get equal share.

My favorite line from Skakespeare:

"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers!"

(From: Henry The Sixth)

Wisdom survives the ages - lol!

Wow, equal share. They didn't even put in for this drawing, while others DID. So that means the others, according to your logic, should end up with equal share of the jackpot. A more equitable approach would be a percentage basis of the jackpot that those 2 who DID not pay into the winning jackpot drawing but from the $9 win plus whatever else was paid in additionally for the jackpot drawing. You would have to calculate what everyone put in, then come up with the figures if you use your logic. However...... The lottery pool didn't just take the whopping $9 win and use ONLY that.... no, they put other funds in that were NOT part of the previous $9 win. 

In any case, if I'm hearing you correctly, let's say they give the non-participants their equal share of the $9 win prior, then that evens things up and the money spent on the winning tickets are then free and clear for the participants?

In either case, the $9 should be distributed to the participants involved and the next drawing should be based on those who actually paid in wheather or not another $9 was used towards the drawing. All that matters is that the non-participants are made whole for the $9 win, NOT the jackpot. 

The rightful property of the non-participants IS their equal share of the $9 win. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. That they are surely entitled to. Problem is, it won't cover lawyer fees to try and get the equal share of the jackpot. 

I think this case WILL get ruled in favor of the Lottery pool and against the non-participants. IMO. BTW, it was an "Understanding", nothing in writing that future winnings go towards future draws.

All we can do is what and see my friend.

Heck,  why don't they just give the $9 to the two to split.  Heck, they won the jackpot, they can afford to give all the previous winnings to the two who didn't play in the last draw..

They did put in for the drawing. The $9 was their particpation in the winning jackpot drawing. It bought them their ticket in. That $9 has equal weight to the new money the pool received for the new drawing. Why would it be on a percentage basis? They already had an understanding that the $9 won in the previous drawing would be used in the next. It's the same thing if they had given these guys their share of the $9, only for them to hand it right back and say "this is my buy-in into the next drawing".

Two things that make this a slam dunk case:

1. The $9 was used to purchase the winning ticket.
2. They had an understanding that the $9 won would go towards the next drawing.

That's equal share in my book.

The $9 was used on behalf of the pool players that contributed money to purchase the tickets that won the prize of $9.

The $118m Jackpot was won with shares of money that belonged to the two plaintiffs. There was an existing authorization by the two plaintiffs, that saw their share in the $9, share in the pool of a larger fund, that won the $118m Jackpot. I believe that the two plaintiffs should at least, get a proportion in the Jackpot, that equals their share of money contribution, as already reflected in these posts by others.

Without considering any other factors that the Judge or Jury might be looking at, I believe that the following formula should be minimal enough to help determine the share of winnings for each player, and that is, assuming that the two plaintiffs will only be the plaintiffs in this matter before the lawsuit is over.

Each of the 11 players that contributed a dollar each has a total contribution of $1-⁹/₁₃  or $²²/₁₃ or $1.692

Each of the 2 players that contributed ZERO dollar, each has a total contribution of $0-⁹/₁₃ or $⁹/₁₃ or $0.692

The 2 players contributed significantly less than 1/2(0.408) of what each of the other 11 players contributed.

The distribution of prize money will not be equal for the 11 and the 2 plaintiffs in the least. The plaintiffs may be allowed to receive the equivalent of 41% of what each of the other 11 players get, and again, that is of course if this case takes a simple linear path, which may be un-likely, as there could be any number of un-written practices between th eplayers that could be introduced, that could add to or reduce what the 2 plaintiffs may get.

Great line.  Gotta love Shakespeare!  Shakespeare slammed lawyers in several lovely different ways in different penned pieces (he musta had his share of run-ins with them).

In "Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio uses the line "O'er lawyers' fingers, who straight dream on fees;"

In "King Lear", the fool defends a speech in riddles by comparing it to an "unfee'd lawyer".

In the past, lottery prizes for pool members have been split in proportion to the amount of money contributed by each pool member. So, a player that contributes $1.00 would get half the amount that a player that contribuited $2.00 gets. This traditional precedent is most likely to be played out again in this matter

The contributions of money to purchase the winning ticket were not equal, and therfore the sharing of prizes should not be equal.

What is accepted shared equal among all, is an intagible component of the event that caused the jackpot win, the matter of randomness, etc. This factor is not easily measurable and no monies, or weights of monies were assigned to any player in specifics. Therefore, this accepted equality plays no role in the dividing of the prize money. Only the measurable monies that were brought in by each player,  should be used to sort out the payouts to each player including the two who did not contribute additional dollars.

Pools are for fools.  What should be a time of total elation is instead a time of contention and strife.  I would rather have less of a chance of winning with my few buck per draw plays than to win any amount of prize with a pool of fools.

j.w.blue's answer is the right method to distribute the lottery funds this is the only way to have the funds divided up and makes lots of sense. well done jwblue