Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
The time is now 5:05 pm
You last visited September 1, 2014, 4:59 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

$2 million Hoosier Lottery winner has to give ex-wife $50,000

Indiana LotteryIndiana Lottery: $2 million Hoosier Lottery winner has to give ex-wife $50,000
52
Rating:

A man who won $2 million in the Hoosier Lottery while separated from his wife has to give her only 2.5 percent of the winnings, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

The decision upholds a 2012 Allen Superior Court ruling in which Jose De Jesus Carrillo Perez was ordered to pay his ex-wife, Maria Guadalupe Vidrios Zepeda, $10,000 each year for five years from the money he won on a scratch-off ticket in 2011.

The couple married in February 2002. They separated in March 2006, but neither filed for legal separation or divorce at the time.

"During the next six years," the court order said, "the couple spoke only two or three times, never commingled assets, had separate bank accounts, and generally lived as single individuals."

In January 2011, Carrillo Perez won the $2 million. That March he filed for divorce. It was granted June 19, 2012.

After Carrillo Perez won the lottery, his estranged wife wanted a share of it, said Fort Wayne attorney Mark C. Chambers, who represented Carrillo Perez. He said Vidrios Zepeda initially asked for $1.4 million.

"The interesting thing for us was that the parties were separated physically, but they didn't file for divorce," Chambers said. "In the legal scheme, they were still married and the assets they accrued under standard divorce law would belong to both of them, and the presumption would be that they would be split 50-50.

"But this case was unique. When they split up, the wife took everything, and there was almost no contact for nearly six years until Jose won the lottery."

In ruling that Vidrios Zepeda was not entitled to an equal split of the marital assets, including the lottery receipts, the Court of Appeals said Allen Superior Court Judge Charles F. Pratt "found that the extended physical separation, during which time no funds were ever commingled and each person lived as an individual, justified limiting (Vidrios Zepeda's) equitable interest in the lottery winnings."

Judges in "separate property" states such as Indiana may divide assets "in any manner that is just and reasonable, and that determination depends on the facts of the case," said Margaret Ryznar, a professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis.

"Often the court will divide marital assets in a proportion resembling 50-50, but there is room for departure depending on the court's judgment," she explained.

"Here, the departure is not surprising given that the husband and wife were living entirely separate lives by the time of the lotto winnings. Thus, while this is an interesting case to see how an Indiana court would divide lotto winnings in an estranged marriage, the result may differ in the next case depending on the facts of that marriage."

Matthew Williams, the Fort Wayne attorney who represented Vidrios Zepeda, did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Indianapolis Star

We'd love to see your comments here!  Register for a FREE membership — it takes just a few moments — and you'll be able to post comments here and on any of our forums. If you're already a member, you can Log In to post a comment.

51 comments. Last comment 4 months ago by One-Day.
Page 1 of 4
Marilyn222's avatar - 1975203 678005355574080_1381926342_n.jpg
Denver
United States
Member #117688
October 12, 2011
410 Posts
Offline
Posted: April 24, 2014, 12:05 pm - IP Logged

A man who won $2 million in the Hoosier Lottery while separated from his wife has to give her only 2.5 percent of the winnings, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

The decision upholds a 2012 Allen Superior Court ruling in which Jose De Jesus Carrillo Perez was ordered to pay his ex-wife, Maria Guadalupe Vidrios Zepeda, $10,000 each year for five years from the money he won on a scratch-off ticket in 2011.

The couple married in February 2002. They separated in March 2006, but neither filed for legal separation or divorce at the time.

"During the next six years," the court order said, "the couple spoke only two or three times, never commingled assets, had separate bank accounts, and generally lived as single individuals."

In January 2011, Carrillo Perez won the $2 million. That March he filed for divorce. It was granted June 19, 2012.

After Carrillo Perez won the lottery, his estranged wife wanted a share of it, said Fort Wayne attorney Mark C. Chambers, who represented Carrillo Perez. He said Vidrios Zepeda initially asked for $1.4 million.

"The interesting thing for us was that the parties were separated physically, but they didn't file for divorce," Chambers said. "In the legal scheme, they were still married and the assets they accrued under standard divorce law would belong to both of them, and the presumption would be that they would be split 50-50.

"But this case was unique. When they split up, the wife took everything, and there was almost no contact for nearly six years until Jose won the lottery."

In ruling that Vidrios Zepeda was not entitled to an equal split of the marital assets, including the lottery receipts, the Court of Appeals said Allen Superior Court Judge Charles F. Pratt "found that the extended physical separation, during which time no funds were ever commingled and each person lived as an individual, justified limiting (Vidrios Zepeda's) equitable interest in the lottery winnings."

Judges in "separate property" states such as Indiana may divide assets "in any manner that is just and reasonable, and that determination depends on the facts of the case," said Margaret Ryznar, a professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis.

"Often the court will divide marital assets in a proportion resembling 50-50, but there is room for departure depending on the court's judgment," she explained.

"Here, the departure is not surprising given that the husband and wife were living entirely separate lives by the time of the lotto winnings. Thus, while this is an interesting case to see how an Indiana court would divide lotto winnings in an estranged marriage, the result may differ in the next case depending on the facts of that marriage."

Matthew Williams, the Fort Wayne attorney who represented Vidrios Zepeda, did not respond to messages seeking comment.

It's just right. Lol

    Avatar
    florida
    United States
    Member #76332
    June 24, 2009
    21 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: April 24, 2014, 12:08 pm - IP Logged

    Does she get 2.5% of the cash value or of the Advertised value in this case being 2M ?. jeessh i would hope its the former. Unhappy

    never take advise from someone unless you are willing to live their lifestyle

      Avatar
      NEW YORK
      United States
      Member #90537
      April 29, 2010
      3248 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: April 24, 2014, 12:08 pm - IP Logged

      It's just right. Lol

      Is it fair to say that marriage is a legal contract?

        Avatar
        NEW YORK
        United States
        Member #90537
        April 29, 2010
        3248 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: April 24, 2014, 12:10 pm - IP Logged

        Does she get 2.5% of the cash value or of the Advertised value in this case being 2M ?. jeessh i would hope its the former. Unhappy

        She gets $50k from the lump sum. It looks like he took the cash value.

          Marilyn222's avatar - 1975203 678005355574080_1381926342_n.jpg
          Denver
          United States
          Member #117688
          October 12, 2011
          410 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: April 24, 2014, 12:10 pm - IP Logged

          Is it fair to say that marriage is a legal contract?

          Yes, marriage is a legal contract between two parties. It is a binding agreement that includes prenuptial...hehehe

            dallascowboyfan's avatar - tiana the-princess-and-the-frog.jpg
            Oklahoma
            United States
            Member #82391
            November 12, 2009
            5273 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: April 24, 2014, 12:17 pm - IP Logged

            No contact for 6 years $50,000 is better than nothing with.

            I Love Pink & Green 1908

              Avatar
              NEW YORK
              United States
              Member #90537
              April 29, 2010
              3248 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: April 24, 2014, 12:32 pm - IP Logged

              No contact for 6 years $50,000 is better than nothing with.

              I agree. $50k is a consolation prize.

                Avatar
                NEW YORK
                United States
                Member #90537
                April 29, 2010
                3248 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: April 24, 2014, 12:34 pm - IP Logged

                Yes, marriage is a legal contract between two parties. It is a binding agreement that includes prenuptial...hehehe

                It is the reason people are afraid of marriage in the USA.

                  noise-gate's avatar - images q=tbn:ANd9GcR91HDs4UJhjxO7cmeMQWZ5lB_FOcMLOGicau4V74R45tDgPWrr
                  Bay Area/ California
                  United States
                  Member #136482
                  December 12, 2012
                  2004 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: April 24, 2014, 1:02 pm - IP Logged

                  It is the reason people are afraid of marriage in the USA.

                  Which people?- oh, you mean those who are afraid to commit to a relationship huh Thrifty?
                  The same bunch that string a woman or man along for years while reaping the benefits and when they tired of the so called " same old" they kick them to the curb?
                  Last month the drummer of Motley Crue whose 55 got married for the 3rd time to a 28 year old,  some folk who posted comments said " Stop marrying your daughters". Yikes.
                  Its quite possible that had this taken place in California- he would have had to fork over 50% of his winnings.

                    mrcraft's avatar - images3lp4 zps7dbb4a10.jpg
                    Los Angeles, California
                    United States
                    Member #149499
                    December 2, 2013
                    769 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: April 24, 2014, 2:19 pm - IP Logged

                    The ex-wife is a piece of work.  She initially asked for $1.4 million.  Isn't that everything plus more after taxes...

                      HaveABall's avatar - rocket

                      United States
                      Member #72448
                      March 18, 2009
                      961 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: April 24, 2014, 3:30 pm - IP Logged

                      Does she get 2.5% of the cash value or of the Advertised value in this case being 2M ?. jeessh i would hope its the former. Unhappy

                      Magic 007, it appears to be the latter.  As the possibly fair $50,000 judgment award [that's $10,000 -- non-taxed again by Fed and State, paid five times annually to his wife during the time of win and claim) is 2.5% of the full advertised $2,000,000 annuitized jackpot win. 

                      I understand your confusion though, the article never stated, so we readers have no idea, if he received the annuitized value (paying lower annual taxes 30 times in a much lower tax bracket) or the cash value (receiving 1 payment and paying much higher tax bracket).  The article didn't indicate if either are U.S.A. Citizens, so his taxes [she doesn't pay taxes, since it's an judgment award he pays after he first pays fed and state taxers] could be lower if not.

                      Cheers! Cheers

                      Having millions of dollars in my financial accounts means more, consistent fun for me.Lovies

                        mypiemaster's avatar - peace
                        He who dies with the most toys WINS!!!.

                        United States
                        Member #141039
                        April 2, 2013
                        722 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: April 24, 2014, 4:24 pm - IP Logged

                        GOLD DIGGER ALERT!!!

                        .....If your spouse's love is toxic to you, I reckon the  money should be equally toxic to you as well.

                        .....If your spouse is not getting the love, he/she should not be paying for loverboy/girl, banging you during their free time.

                        .....Trying to take all the money and more, gives a clue as to how you felt about the relationship.

                        .....These "stupid" judges should understand that no love equals no money.

                        .....Is there anybody on this forum that likes to see the community banging their spouse while they foot the bill?.

                        .....NO LOVE = NO MONEY!!!.

                        Seekand ye shall find -Matt. 7:7 ...Ask and ye shall receive -John 16:24 ...Give and it shall be given unto you -Luke 6:38 ...Be careful what you ask for!!! -Mypiemaster 1:1

                        Having Money Solves Problems That Not Having Money Creates Yes Nod ****John Carlton****

                          pickone4me's avatar - No Whining_Sign-300x215_zpse7635f92.jpg
                          Wisconsin
                          United States
                          Member #104966
                          January 23, 2011
                          431 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: April 24, 2014, 4:28 pm - IP Logged

                          Screwed over twice,  that's america for ya.

                            maringoman's avatar - kobold
                            Massachusetts
                            United States
                            Member #37433
                            April 14, 2006
                            1985 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: April 24, 2014, 5:33 pm - IP Logged

                            Jose De Jesus Carrillo Perez should be happy he does not live in the wonderful state of Massachusetts. The progressive judges here would have given Maria Guadalupe Vidrios Zepeda (did they meet at a names contest? LOL) half the jp and a lifetime of alimony. 

                            It's a futile effort.