Claims she "overwhelmed" him into gifting part of $1 million jackpot 

By Kate Northrop

A would-be happy celebration of a $986,212 (US$661,142) jackpot turned into a drawn-out legal battle after an Australian lottery winner sued his daughter for allegedly pressuring him into sharing some of the winnings with her.

Things started going his way when Queensland resident William John Bampton, 92, won a nearly $1 million Australian Lottery jackpot, but he eventually found his family in pieces following a conflict involving him, his two children, and the lottery winnings.

The legal scuffle resulted in Bampton gifting his daughter a $300,000 (US$200,658) share of the prize, but now wants it back, claiming that she had coerced him into giving her the money. The proceedings came to light in court documents released last month.

In March 2018, Bampton scooped up $986,212 in the lottery, instantly changing his life for the better. With the winnings, he was able to put down a $50,000 (US$33,519) deposit on a new home.

He later put down an additional $505,000 (US$337,774) to purchase the property and committed to co-owning it with his son, Larry Bampton. However, his daughter, Sue Vourlides, was excluded.

Statements given by Sue and her father in court about their interactions often conflicted with each other. Shortly after being told of the win, Sue said she took Bampton out shopping, and in the car ride home, he allegedly said of the lottery win: "This is a good thing. I would like to give you and Larry $300,000 each and you might think about buying a unit as a nest egg."

Bampton said it was "an outright lie" and that he "never suggested that to my daughter at the time."

Another instance Sue noted was the trip that she, her husband, Jim, and Bampton made after claiming the prize at the Lottery office. Jim was allegedly driving, with Bampton in the passenger seat and Sue in the back. During that car ride, she said Bampton had again suggested giving $300,000 to each of his children.

But Bampton said Jim was never in the car and did not accompany them to collect the prize, nor did he recall making that statement about distributing the winnings to his children.

According to court documents, Bampton had later told his daughter that the reason why he gave his son a share of the prize, but not her, was that he did not want her husband, to have any of the money. He had also changed his will to ensure that Sue would not receive her inheritance until Jim dies.

Sue had recalled her father saying to her: "Jim did something to me. Don't you remember? When your mother died, he printed out all those things. What the executor of the will does. He's after my money."

She thought that the conversation was to do with the will, and not the $300,000 gift that she says had been mentioned multiple times.

In May 2018, Bampton invited Sue and Jim into his living room to openly discuss the conditions of the will and a share of the lottery prize. He communicated to both of them that he would not give Sue both her inheritance and the $300,000 gift until Jim dies.

Sue recalled how her father had refused to directly explain his reasoning, stating that it was "just a horrible thing to say to someone." She had asked him several questions, such as "Why are you punishing me? What's the problem? Why have you changed?"

A few days later, Sue and her husband received a letter from her father in the mail. He wrote that Sue had "clearly indicated to me that it was a stupid idea" to change the will "because [Sue] may not live long enough to enjoy the money... I will give you a check when you decide to buy."

He then went on to say that he was convinced to change the will back so that Sue would "get 40% of all money," while Larry and his family would get 10%, such that "altogether there would have 6 x 10% and 1 X 40%."

When Bampton testified in cross-examination, he again denied that the conversation in the living room had ever taken place, and that he did not remember several details.

Instead, he said that Sue had blocked him in the kitchen while he attempted to leave the room to go to bed, all the while "conducting herself in a threatening manner." He claimed he did not have the physical strength to move her out of the way so that he could leave the room.

"Suzanne then shouted at me, 'You are going to tell me before you go to bed why Larry gets more than me — I want $300,000,'" Bampton recalled his daughter saying to him. He said a shouting and swearing match between them took place, which "raged for more than one hour, possibly two hours."

"She made it clear to me at the beginning of the fight that she would not let him leave the kitchen until I provided her with answers to her questions which she believed to be satisfactory," Bampton testified. "Throughout the argument by reason of her positioning herself and leaning over me and shouting at me I believed I would be injured by Suzanne if I did not agree to make the payment which she demanded of me... So I could be relieved of my predicament and go to bed, I stated to Suzanne, words to the effect, 'If that's what you want, that's what you get... Apparently satisfied with my response Suzanne then ceased blocking my way out of the kitchen and I went to bed."

He painted his daughter as a "very bad tempered woman," someone who "forgets what she's doing" and "makes up words."

Bampton had eventually visited a bank unaccompanied to obtain a check for $300,000 and gave it to Sue.

After a relentless back and forth of he-said-she-said, the presiding judge, Sheridan DCJ, noted that Bampton had conducted himself both in court and in written evidence, such as his letter to Sue and Jim, with "a clear mind and definite sense of purpose."  The judge had also noted that he displayed a temper when challenged, while Sue appeared to be timid and lacking in confidence. She would become "emotional when recounting how her father behaved toward her."

"There was clearly a power imbalance with Mr. Bampton being the stronger of the two," Sheridan DCJ stated, providing reasoning for why it was unlikely that Sue had coerced her father into gifting her a share of the prize.

"In the end, I am unable to accept that the check was presented as a result of Mr. Bampton being bullied into it," the judge continued in the decision. "Mr. Bampton was a strong and forceful personality."

Bampton's case against his daughter was dismissed, and unless both parties can agree on legal costs independently, the judge will order the appropriate legal fees.