MILPITAS, Calif. — Assembly line worker Evangelina Reyes had big plans for the $1 million she won earlier this year in the California Lottery's "Emerald 10" scratch-off game. But then the owner of the Milpitas liquor store where she bought the winning ticket slapped her with a lawsuit, claiming she'd signed a handwritten contract guaranteeing him half the prize.
Now, instead of dipping into the money for a family vacation in Hawaii and serenely banking the rest for early retirement, the 53-year-old mother of five is gearing up for a court battle with Laxmi Kant Bhardwaj, the owner of USA Liquors. At his request, a judge last week temporarily froze $350,000, half of her after-tax prize.
Reyes is hardly the first lucky lottery winner to duke it out in court. Ugly battles exposing the seamier side of hitting the jackpot have been sprouting up for years, from Indianapolis to Ottawa to York, England. In Bakersfield, for instance, a 75-year-old woman who took a $32 million lump sum payout from the California Lottery settled a lawsuit she filed two years ago against her son, claiming he filched some of the money to buy four houses, 10 cars and a boat. Currently, a legal dispute similar to the one between Bhardwaj and Reyes is raging in East Helena, Montana, between two men over splitting a $1 million lottery prize.
In Reyes' case, the squabble has taken some of the shine off her good fortune. She's been buying lottery tickets from various stores in the Bay Area nearly every other day for at least two decades and was ecstatic about her big win until Bhardwaj sued.
"It's unbelievable," said a tearful Reyes during an interview in her lawyers' office. "I'm so depressed, I cannot sleep."
Bhardwaj couldn't be reached for comment. But his lawyer Paul L. Gumina contended in an interview that there is ample evidence that Reyes owes Bhardwaj $350,000, including an eyewitness to their agreement. Reyes' lawyers, on the other hand, claim the alleged witness wasn't actually there.
Bhardwaj has already been paid the $5,000, or half of 1 percent of the $1 million prize, that he is entitled to for selling the winning ticket Jan. 5, Lottery spokesman Alex Traverso confirmed. However, when Bhardwaj called the Lottery to report that one of his customers had won the prize, he did not claim half was his, the spokesman said.
The conflict dates back to December, after Reyes won a smaller prize from a winning scratch-off ticket she'd bought from Bhardwaj's tiny store tucked in a mini-mall on Calaveras Boulevard.
Overjoyed by the $1,000 she won that day, Reyes gave $100 to Bhardwaj after he'd jokingly asked how much he was going to get, thinking it would increase her luck in the future, her lawyers said.
She then returned to the store in early January after she got off from work packing computers into boxes for $14.20 an hour, and plunked down $20 for two $10 "Emerald 10" scratch-off tickets. She immediately scratched them off and screamed for joy after one showed she'd won $1 million. Reyes then signed a small card or piece of paper at Bhardwaj's request without reading it, she said, believing she needed to do so to eventually get the money. At some point, she said he asked her once again to share the prize.
"I promise to give him $50,000," Reyes said during the interview, adding that she was in shock at the time and believed that paying him would once again improve her future luck. Both Bhardwaj and Reyes are naturalized citizens who learned English as a second language, something her lawyer says may have contributed to a misunderstanding between them.
But Bhardwaj's breach-of-contract lawsuit claims that in December, Reyes paid him $500 of her $1,000 winning ticket, not $100, based on their spoken agreement that he would advance her the money for the tickets as long as she split the prize with him equally.
In January, they entered into the same agreement, the lawsuit alleges. He offered to buy her $80 worth of tickets in exchange for half of any prize, the suit contends. The handwritten document that Reyes signed, which does not state that he bought the tickets for her, constitutes a legally binding contract to pay him $350,000, which she has violated, according to the lawsuit.
There's nothing in the Lottery's code of conduct that prohibits its 21,000 retailers from making such deals with customers, spokesman Traverso said. The agency also does not keep track of how many track lawsuits are filed over prizes.
In contrast, Reyes' lawyers Nelson McElmurry and Domenico Scire contend that Bhardwaj doctored the document, pointing to the manner in which some of the numbers are squeezed onto the page and the fact that his first lawyer sent them a different version of it than the one they received 11 days later from Gumina, the second lawyer Bhardwaj hired. At most, they said, it might have originally stated that Reyes would pay him the $50,000.
But even if Reyes rashly promised to give the store owner $50,000, she is not obligated to pay him, they claim. Under the law, they said, promising to give someone a gift is not considered a legally binding agreement or contract, and the person may withdraw the promise with impunity, even if they have signed the offer. An enforceable contract exists only if the person who is promised something has gotten something in return. Reyes' lawyers claim Bhardwaj did not pay for the lottery tickets, so there is no breach of contract.
"The whole thing is a ruse," McElmurry said, "as we plan to prove in court."
(Click to display full-size in gallery)
(Click to display full-size in gallery)
For the love of Ella! Stop making promises on money you haven't won yet. You bought the ticket. You positioned yourself in the right place at the right time and purchased the right scratch off for the win.
The only thing I am signing is my ticket and paperwork at the official lottery headquarters in the presence of my attorney.
I do wonder though if investigations will soon reveal that this store owner somehow figured out how to determine the winning scratch offs and partnered with this lady unknowingly to share in her winnings. Hmmm....
I eagerly await the court's ruling on this drama.
If he give her the tickets she need to suck it up and pay the man.Cause now she about to give some to a lawyer. Congratulations anyway
Well this is going to be messy.
Drama....
Drama....
Drama 
.... Why on earth would anybody make a deal with a cashier 
???? I don't know who to believe sounds like the cashier is shaking down people 
but if the customer made a deal she should honor it 
. The sad thing is the lawyers will end up with a lot of the money 
.
Unless I read it wrong why would a store owner buy you 80 dollars worth of tickets but you must share half. He could of bought the tickets himself and kept it all. There's got to be more to the story...
I get tired of these different store owners say (and they are foreigners) how much did you win me today. I hate to be rude but I just do not say anything back to them...I hear different horror stories quite often.
l have purchased tickets at this place in the past. Its a hole in the wall and l have never seen a single customer in this store at any of the times that l have visited . You can stick a fork in me- l am done with this location.
If I played the lottery and lived in that area I would definitely never go to that store again.
Store people are getting more crazy everyday .This is why you never scratch at the store when you buy go home or to your car so when you win big just drive away adios Amigo lol
This is just plain crazy
Have the store owner arrested for extortion!
Frivolous lawsuit ... has no chance of getting anywhere unless there is more to the story than what we know.
When cashing tickets, I have had clerks and business owners ask what their share is; my answer was that your share was my money spent on losing tickets- and then I have stopped buying at those locations (I have tipped clerks at regular locations when cashing tickets and will spend an extra dollar to buy a clerk their own ticket before the drawing on a number I have a strong feeling about). I find it quite annoying when others act as if we're partners and I'm obligated to them if I hit.
I don't think the store owner is entitled to anything, even if Evangelina Reyes agreed to split any prize she won, for 2 reasons:
1 - The "agreement" at the time seemed to be more of a friendly gesture, which isn't legally enforceable. This wasn't the formation of a "lottery pool" so to speak. People make extravagant agreements all the time. It's kind of like if my dad asked me if I won the lottery if I would give him a million dollars and I said "Sure", and then when I won, I'm not allowed to change my mind. That's not a legally enforceable agreement. I can't be forced to pay him a million dollars.
2 - I question the legality of the agreement itself. The CA Lottery Retailer Code of Conduct states the following:
"Never charge a fee or require a purchase from customers in exchange for assistance with
Lottery products or prize cashing"
and
"Promote fair, honest, respectful, professional,
and courteous treatment of all customers and
Lottery representatives at all times"
So it appears to me the agreement itself was not legal in the first place, which 99% of the time means it's an open-and-shut-case. As Judge Judy would say: The store owner doesn't have "clean hands", and therefore could not make a judgement in the store owner's favor.
l concur- l see absolutely no reason why people who are forking over their own money should be entering " an agreement" with any store clerk/ owner over winnings. The Store did nothing but run YOUR numbers through the machine.Next we going to read that Restaurants want a fee for you to use their restroom if you not eating on property.
I hope the Judge "sees the light" and tosses this maniac's lawsuit out.
What a greedy, self-serving, unethical, dishonest dirt-bag this store owner is.
This money belongs to the woman who bought the ticket, completely! 
This certainly sounds like a shake-down; an extortion attempt. 
I hope the courts rips this store owner a new one for his conduct. I have heard that gift offerings are revocable anytime and are not binding in anyway. This store owner should lose his lottery ticket selling license.
Wut u said!!!!!!!!!!
This is why you absolutely never ever ever make a promise of money to anyone, especially these <snip>s. This should honestly be thrown out of court.
Is sharing money with someone another new way of winning the lottery?
Suzy got it right.." A Dishonest Dirtbag!"
Until someone can explain to me (with a logical and convincing argument) why this shop owner would be buying a perfect stranger tickets, for her to split with him, I don't care what she signed, he would not be getting a dime. They aren't related, they aren't friends, they aren't coworkers. Their relationship seems to only be that he sells tickets and she's generous and superstitious. His argument is full of holes.
If they really had an agreement, why did he wait until after she won to have her sign a contract? Why didn't he buy the tickets and give her half of them, why give her all the tickets? Why didn't he sign the ticket at the time he had her sign that agreement? Why did he make no mention of the win when he collected the store bonus? He figured out that this woman is not too bright and saw an opportunity to score big.
I feel sorry for Reyes, but I thank God for people like her who help to show the rest of us what not to do. Stop promising people money IF you ever win, even in jest, and don't sign anything unless it's in the lottery office and you've consulted with a lawyer.
I know the best way to catch this clerk thief. I think he had similar agreements with all his customers this is not his only rip off he is a full time lotto thief and knows all the loop holes so set up 800 number for more victims to call and nail his a..
A Sad lesson to learn.
Never make written or oral statements to pay a lottery retailer or "runner" (someone who offers to buy the ticket(s) for you for a fee), in the event you hit a big jackpot.
Something really stinks here. Real fishy deal. I hope she did not quit her $14.20/hr job. The lawyers are going to be smiling all the way to the bank. Fools.
All the more reason to be wary buying lottery tickets from small independents, in particular, "mom & pop" owned convenience stores. I buy and cash most all my tickets, including instants, from self-service terminals located in large, chain owned businesses, such as Wawa, Weis, and Giant Foods. Any winner over $2,500 (biggest I ever get are $1,000; still hoping to hit big someday), I'd claim directly at lottery headquarters.
On a related note, this lawsuit brings to mind the risk of playing instant win on-line terminal games that some states offer. For example, say a ticket prints out as an instant winner, but the player hasn't yet handed over the money or the clerk refuses / hands the money back. Who owns the winning ticket?
Pennsylvania doesn't offer any instant on-line terminal games, but many states do. In my view, best to buy from self-service terminals whenever possible.
Awful.
I can picture the opportunistic jerk. At the risk of sounding very bad here, I do not like Indian retailers. They run
these smoke shops and some of them are very pushy. They have no modesty when it comes to statements like
You'll be splitting with me if you win, right? or I get half of what you win on that ticket, right? or If you win, I get
some, right? Selling tickets doesn't put you in a position to go 1/2 and 1/2 on what anyone buys from your shop.
It's the buyer's ticket. If this lady was presented something to sign and signed it, she probably was elated and
didn't even think of being scammed or set up to owe this guy anything at all. So how many people have said
to shut up a pushy clerk: Yeah, I'll split it with you...I'll bet not ONE person really meant it. This is hogwash
and I hope she doesn't have to give the greedy azz a dime. He should have the ability to sell lottery taken
away from him and that way maybe he can mind his own business and make his own money.
I don't take kindly to people that want a share of anything I buy. There are some that know not to talk to me other
than to say: Thank you for the money I push over the counter, that's the way I like it. Leave me and my money alone.
I never buy tickets in stores, I only play by subscription. This story supports ny position.
i wouldn't give him shyt.............. sorry clerk.
dr65
and I'll go you one better,
the winner should have a say in weather or not the store gets to collect the 1/2 of 1% or whatever the store gets when they sell a winner.
Then ticket buyers would be treated w/ much more respect.
Yea right, like that'll ever happen.
Which state lottery sells scratch-off subscriptions?
The store owner is being GREEDY, but on the other hand she should NOT have signed a single thing. He knew what he was doing when he had her sign that paper.
So basically she may have to suck it up and hand over those funds.
When someone asks me for money for doing nothing even relatives I tell them to "go to hell", this is just another story that supports my position. It may be rude but rude people need to be treated rudely.
Rereading this story it seems that not only should this case be immediately thrown out, I think the Feds need to get involved and arrest this man. He made this woman sign that paper under the pretenses that she needed to do so to get the prize, he clearly had this ready to go and has probably done this before. They need to shut his store down and if applicable, deport him.
Before they deport this guy V let him serve some time in General Population. . Far too many of these lowlifes think that having a Green Card entitled them to pull all sorts of crap & get away with it.l am surprised that the Judge did what he did,makes no sense . Maybe it was on a Friday and he wanted to get out of the city ASAP to Tahoe on a blind date. It's a 3-4 hour drive..
If a cashier asked me how much he would get. I would say All the losers i've purchased here. You're up about 500+ so NOTHING
Should be a law for some of these store owners, always trying to steal from
people. We play year round sometimes we win nothing, and when we do get a good win they
want half. He already go his 1% take that and be happy.
When the jackpots get high, I try to stay away from the people who want to form pools because I don't want them to think I'm rude when I say "no".
Simply saying "no" isn't rude, it's telling them where to go that's rude but it make the point clear enough that you're not likely to be asked again.
I think that neither him nor her are telling the whole truth.
But I do think that she owes him nothing, not a penny.
There's no reason for this to go to court. First you put the clerk in a lobster trap because he'll do it again to someone else, then they should put the money in a trust for the kids so no other low life can try to scam her later.
similar story happened to me when i bought a $10 dollar scratch and win ticket and gave the clerk a $20 dollar bill,immediately the clerk said if you win half is mine and then he gave me $10 dollar change back to me. i refused to take ten dollars back and i said you have short changed me,clerk said the cost of ticket is 10 dollars and you gave me 20 dollars and i give you back 10 dollars,then i said NO,you owe me 15 dollars he said WHY, i explained him if you want to have half of my winning then you pay half of the ticket, so give me 15 dollars back not 10 dollars,he understood the mistake of asking me 50% of my share of winning , but not contributing any thing .then i told him if i win i will keep all the winning and YOU get NOTHING as you did not pay a single cent then he did not say nothing and kept quite.
Red, I will respectfully disagree with you on the going to court. The whole thing is a cluster f**k from the get-go...this one said, this one heard, this one promised, this one signed.....while we can't fix stupid...let the courts address it, both will be losers of some sort, both are paying Atty fees & court costs....and after this mess is all said and done???
Guess what ?? We will have the same thing happen again in another state/location because people don't take the time to educate themselves or think before they open their mouths/make promises/enter into verbal agreements or read documents before signing or even get a copy after.
Both will not loss the store owner will loss all the glory and new custormers looking for good luck .if they hear what he did to last lucky customer they will all say hell no forget that guy .
We are talking California Law, there is that lunacy to contend with.
The Judge freezing the assets, says it will move forward to trial.
Anyone know if both persons were given exact executed copies of the contract?
Not a fan of the lady going public with comments. She should have been warned to neither admit or comment during trial time.
As a lawyer said once, you can't get in trouble for what you do not say.
Freezing the assets is normal procedure. The judge and lawyers will get money and publicity .They will listen to the crap this retail thief has to say b4 putting final nails to his cof... You see.
Everyday this retailers are coming up with new tricks to still customer lotto money. Talk to all his customer and check how many winning tickets him and his relatives have cashed and you see a pattern if behaviour. They are not relatives or married they met at his store where he should have been ban from playing or contract writing in the first place and I hope his name is not Patel then am going to kick his butt myself .
"Not a fan of the lady going public with comments."
There has to be a reason why the judge froze part of the assets and she did say something about giving him $50,000. Compare that to a Florida judge.
This behaviour is totally unacceptable. The lottery should cancel this agency.
I agree. After reading this, if anyone who sold me a ticket even joked about getting part of my money if I won, I would tell them off. Also, always read anything someone asks you to sign.
I think this is crazy and since this thief thinks he deserves this then i say she should also get half of his store commission for selling the ticket as well.
We've seen stories like this so many times that I feel it's high time the lottery vendor rules get changed. The owner of any establishment selling lottery tickets should be prohibited from making lottery claims. It should be enough that they are awarded a percentage of a winning ticket amount. They should not be allowed to purchase tickets, nor should they be allowed to make a claim on a customer's ticket. Contract or not. I am sick and tired of hearing about these shopkeepers taking advantage of customers who don't know any better. Nip it in the bud once and for all.
All those who feel it's okay for the lottery to make a winner's identity public in order to safeguard the "integrity" of the game, THIS is what you should be up in arms about. Where's the integrity of constantly allowing situations like this? They should have put measures in place ever since that Willis Willis incident. Integrity my backside.
Lottery retailers should be treated the same way by law that lottery employees are. They shouldn't be able to receive any lottery prize money whatsoever.
The state lottery is equally at fault here besides the crooked store owner. The state lottery needs to word the contract with the various retailers to limit their role to selling tickets and cashing winners and any other sort of lottery transactions with a customer (advancing money, having them sign anything, etc.) would be in violation of their written lottery retailer agreement. Then if a store owner tries this again, you cannot enforce an illegal act (in violation of their contract).
She admitted to offering him $50,000- this guy "added" a 3 in front of the 50,000 & that is what is being fought about here. Who in their right mind gives a total stranger, in this case a retailer HALF your winnings? His trying to say that it is " her pattern" to give in 50% sums to total strangers, as though her 4 children don't need it, which is why he said that she did not give him $100.00 of her original win of a Grand. He said she gave him $500.00.This guy lies lies like a dog.
l just hope that she has a great legal team that will dismantle this retailer's account of what actually happened. I wouldn't mind 2nd chair.
No I dont think they need to re-word their contract with retailers. Im sure they have things in place that would void their contract with the retailers when they pull things like this. The commission's lawyer's probably will state some moral's clause and that retailer would lose his liscense anyway. Now the state prosecutor's office needs to probably do more than the lottery commission in this case. Losing the right to sell lottery tickets should be the last thing this particular retailer should be worrying about. he should be worrying if he will lose his freedom for a few years in the very least
If you're signing an agreement,to share i.e.but not limited to:
Lawsuits;lottery etc.,signature is valid and not under a type of duress et.al, it is valid.
Or at least multiple cases prove and support wholly such in cali,to east coast.
I think the man will win,with his lawyer,and the lady is quite obtuse for doing this.
What an idiot.But a 'deal is a deal,simple as that,as one caselaw adage,"in writing that is."
Unless also she didn't know what she was signing with him.But i think it is pretty clear she knew.
SMH
adios
All she had to do and this goes for any lottery player. Simple rule to play by