PASSAIC, NJ — A Passaic bodega owner who won a $338 million Powerball jackpot last spring and his former live-in girlfriend settled a lawsuit in state court Friday in which the woman was seeking a share of the fortune.
(See NJ $338 million Powerball winner and ex-girlfriend in court over money, Lottery Post, Nov. 10, 2013.)
Under the terms of the settlement, plaintiff Inez Sanchez agreed to drop her lawsuit and relinquish all rights to pursue it further. In exchange, jackpot winner Pedro Quezada agreed not to recoup from her attorneys' fees it cost him to defend himself in the case. The settlement provided for no other financial benefit to Sanchez.
The case was settled just as state Superior Court Chancery Division Judge Margaret Mary McVeigh was set to rule on a motion to dismiss Sanchez's suit that was filed in January by Quezada's attorneys.
Had the judge dismissed the case, a distinct possibility given recent case law that has struck down so-called "palimony" rights, Sanchez would have been obligated to pay Quezada's attorneys' fees. The total of those fees could not be immediately confirmed Friday.
Good! She got smart and realized it was a losing cause plus it saved her a lot of attorney fees.
I agree!!
You have to love those two pictures side by side. Picture one she's in complete jubilation over her new found fortune. Picture two she's saying "what you talking about Willis" to her attorney who just informed her that she's screwed.
Now you understand why women are so eager to get married
Not so sure how i feel about this one. You know, we certainly aren't familiar the dynamics of their relationship, but i somehow get the feeling he's a bit a trickster and she got jilted. Certainly she doesnt deserve anything like half or anything like that. But I would have hooked her up, said goodbye and be on my merry way. My friend Pedro, you got lucky, nothing more than that. A ticket and a dream that became reality. One cant completely believe everything/anything read in the news these days, but he seems to be operating kind of shifty. Best to both of them anyway. Too bad what should have been a miracle win for them both turned into this.
Good luck to both.
Pedro keeps winning. I bet his new girlfriend makes the old one look like a roadkill lol
I think palimony lawsuits are bullcrap anyway. I'm sorry he didn't hook her up with something but palimony should be outlawed in all 50 states.
Get married and have financial security or leave the bum.
He probably learned never ever allow a live-in girl friend to appear at a press conference with you when you are claiming your lottery winnings or she'll think she is entitled to a potion of it.
She probably learned being a live-in girl friend is nothing like being a wife.
JoeBigLotto was right about Pedro. Could you imagine, the varying degrees of emotional turmoil, running rampant inside that woman? It's never a very good idea, to involve lawyers in these types of cases anyway, because it destroys any vestiges of "love clout or love capital", accumulated over the years. It probably could have been better settled in house, but we don't know the rest of the story. Big Money time and time again, appears to be an unwelcomed barometer, to measure how stable a relationship is. Very sad indeed. PEDRO PLAYS HARDBALL!!!.
. Either way, i really think he should have taken care of her. 10 years and kids would count for something in my book.
Frito better hide from Conchita... She's coming for blood now..
New Jersey sure has had some nuggets lately.
First we have that teenager * Rachel Canning- suing her Parents for support and now we read that Pedro hit the JP twice.Only in America.
Well Pedro surprised me here by getting a good attorney and also looked like the good guy by not making her pay attorney fees. You know this case cost him more than a few dollars. Sounds like he has wise PR counsel as well. Maybe he will do better with his money than my original guess.
And the case only went to trial because it could NOT be settled in house. Most civil law judges require some mediation between parties before cases go to trial.
Well that comment only set us back 60 years. I think it works both ways nowadays when one party may have more $, etc.