Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 10, 2016, 5:13 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Lotto winner's ex-wife fights back

Canada 6/49Canada 6/49: Lotto winner's ex-wife fights back

The gloves have come off in the legal battle over Canada's biggest-ever individual lottery jackpot.

In a new court filing, Nynna Ionson, the ex-wife of $30 million lottery winner Ray Sobeski, makes it clear that she considers him a calculating liar who would go to almost any lengths to keep his new-found wealth out of her hands. ". . .after winning the $30,000,000, the Husband had told reporters that he did not have anyone special in his life," Ms. Ionson says in her 54-page affidavit. "He did not even acknowledge his own two children."

Ms. Ionson's tough approach comes in response to a new document filed by Mr. Sobeski, who savages his former wife as an abusive opportunist.

"Nynna has a terrible temper, and often acts out physically," Mr. Sobeski said. "I have the scar to prove it."

Mr. Sobeski's court document describes his relationship with his ex-wife as a "purely sexual arrangement," and says the marriage ended long before he bought his winning ticket in April of 2003. The nature and chronology of their relationship is the key factor in the court dispute between Ms. Ionson and Mr. Sobeski.

Ms. Ionson says she's entitled to half of Mr. Sobeski's win, and is now asking for interim support of $9,000 a month, along with $262,000 to fund her court case. Ms. Ionson says she waited to file her legal action because she hoped that Mr. Sobeski would return.

"The Wife waited from April 2004 to October of this year for reconciliation. She did not want the legal proceedings to be an impediment to her reconciliation with the Husband and instructed her lawyer not to bring a motion for support notwithstanding her obvious need.

"The Husband has $30,000,000. The Wife needs money to level the playing field and enable her lawyers to prepare the case for trial. The Husband has chosen to take the position that they separated in December of 1998. The Wife now has to prove her relationship as husband and wife from December 1998 to April 2004."

In her affidavit, Ms. Ionson says her lawyers have already spent more than $23,000 on private investigators to gather evidence for the case, and that the costs of bringing the matter to court will be many times that amount: "Because the Husband has made this case factually and legally complicated, it is estimated that the legal fees and disbursements to bring this case to trial will be between $260,000 and $500,000."

Ms. Ionson presents a long list of evidence to support her claim that she and Mr. Sobeski enjoyed a romantic, conjugal relationship that continued until the day he collected his big win at the Ontario Lottery Corporation offices in Toronto.

Among the items cited in Ms. Ionson's new affidavit are the food bill from the evening of April 1, 2004, just hours after Mr. Sobeski picked up his record jackpot.

Ms. Ionson says that Mr. Sobeski took her to the Woodstock Quality Inn for a night of lovemaking in their favorite room, "which included a whirlpool and a fireplace," yet failed to mention that he had just won $30 million.

In her court file, she says that Mr. Sobeski left the next morning, telling her that he was going to Calgary to use up a ski pass before it expired.

Mr. Sobeski's behavior after his winning ticket was drawn has raised pointed questions about his motives. He waited nearly a year to collect his winnings, saying that he needed time to organize his affairs. Others believe he used the time to try to figure out how to keep the money away from his ex-wife.

In his latest court filings, Mr. Sobeski says he was tricked into his 1998 marriage to Ms. Ionson, and that the marriage lasted only two days.

Ms. Ionson's new documents paint a far different picture: "Ray and I had a very passionate and loving relationship," she says. ". . . it is obvious from the events of April 2, 2004, when upon picking up a check for $30 million he called me and arranged to see me and spend the night with me rather than anyone else, that we were together in a close marital relationship at the time."

Globe and Mail

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.

37 comments. Last comment 11 years ago by CASH Only.
Page 1 of 3
Avatar

United States
Member #6676
September 3, 2004
95 Posts
Offline
Posted: December 20, 2005, 8:55 am - IP Logged

Win the Lotto; make sure get a Blind Trust!

--winner2b

    Littleoldlady's avatar - basket
    Clarksville
    United States
    Member #487
    July 15, 2002
    17638 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: December 20, 2005, 9:26 am - IP Logged

    If he has 2 children he should support them but otherwise UNLESS he WAS still playing house ..he should be okay.  You can't divorce and continue sleeping together ..that  means that there is still a relationship.

    If you know your number is going to hit, have patience and then KILL IT!

    You never know when you will get another hit.

      fja's avatar - gnome1

      United States
      Member #91
      January 19, 2002
      11936 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: December 20, 2005, 9:37 am - IP Logged

        looks like the little brain got his big brain in trouble.Poke

       

      ..Naughty

        Avatar
        New Mexico
        United States
        Member #12305
        March 10, 2005
        2984 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: December 20, 2005, 9:43 am - IP Logged

        Ms. Ionson says that Mr. Sobeski took her to the Woodstock Quality Inn for a night of lovemaking in their favorite room, "which included a whirlpool and a fireplace," yet failed to mention that he had just won $30 million.

        She says he's a lowlife, he says she's a moneygrubber.  Maybe they're both telling the truth.

        If they're not married she's just a one-night stand he had the night after he won the lottery, and he was a one-night stand for her, giving her no more claim to his winnings than any other one night stand would have.

        The kiddos are probably already getting some child support.  A judge will probably peruse that amount and see whether it should be adjusted.

        But it's going to be a cat fight this ex probably won't win, seems to me.

        Jack

        Absorb the good, ignore the bad, weigh the ugly.

        It's about number behavior.

        Egos don't count.

         

        Dedicated to the memory of Big Loooser

         

          Avatar
          md
          United States
          Member #14047
          April 20, 2005
          579 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: December 20, 2005, 12:31 pm - IP Logged

          Evidently she has the goods on him, in terms of the hotel receipts etc.  If you read the story and you understand the legal ramifications (I have experienced divorce and remarriage) he is going to have to share 50% + legal fees.  Someone said, he let his little brain get his big brain in trouble. 

           

          After you factor in the 2 kids he may come away with one third of his lump sum payment.  Let this be a lesson to all in tangled relationships, money brings the beast out of everyone. 

            Avatar
            Sparta, NJ
            United States
            Member #18331
            July 9, 2005
            1977 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: December 20, 2005, 1:21 pm - IP Logged

            Ms. Ionson says that Mr. Sobeski took her to the Woodstock Quality Inn for a night of lovemaking in their favorite room, "which included a whirlpool and a fireplace," yet failed to mention that he had just won $30 million.

            Ms. Ionson's new documents paint a far different picture: "Ray and I had a very passionate and loving relationship," she says. ". . . it is obvious from the events of April 2, 2004, when upon picking up a check for $30 million he called me and arranged to see me and spend the night with me rather than anyone else, that we were together in a close marital relationship at the time."

            Liar Liar Pants on fire! When in doubt, never believe the one who is obsessed with the grabbing.

            Cheers

            |||::> *'`*:-.,_,.-:*''*:--->>> Chewie  <<<---.*''*:-.,_,.-:*''* <:::|||

            I only trust myself - and that's a questionable choice

              emilyg's avatar - cat anm.gif

              United States
              Member #14
              November 9, 2001
              31364 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: December 20, 2005, 1:33 pm - IP Logged

              Ms. Ionson says that Mr. Sobeski took her to the Woodstock Quality Inn for a night of lovemaking in their favorite room, "which included a whirlpool and a fireplace," yet failed to mention that he had just won $30 million.

              Ms. Ionson's new documents paint a far different picture: "Ray and I had a very passionate and loving relationship," she says. ". . . it is obvious from the events of April 2, 2004, when upon picking up a check for $30 million he called me and arranged to see me and spend the night with me rather than anyone else, that we were together in a close marital relationship at the time."

              Liar Liar Pants on fire! When in doubt, never believe the one who is obsessed with the grabbing.

              seems both their pants were on fire  Green laugh

              love to nibble those micey feet.

               

                                           

                RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                mid-Ohio
                United States
                Member #9
                March 24, 2001
                19831 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: December 20, 2005, 1:40 pm - IP Logged

                Sounds like it time for this guy to find a new country to live in and take his money with him.  Every women he has ever smiled at probably thinks she deserve something from him now (and maybe some guys too). 

                 * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
                   
                             Evil Looking       

                  TheGameGrl's avatar - character catafly.jpg
                  A long and winding road
                  United States
                  Member #17084
                  June 10, 2005
                  4533 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: December 20, 2005, 6:17 pm - IP Logged

                  She is the "ex-wife", thus exonerating her to any claims or debts he has. Where is the problem in this case? Seems very clear. They are no longer married, nor is she entitled to his winfall. If he was 50,000 $ in debt I can guarantee you she wouldnt be court ordered to share his debt, instead she'd dodge him like the plague.....Vice Versa scenarios have a way of placing things in a different light I say.

                  ~~Is it true, Is it kind,Is it necessary. ~~~

                  christmas holly jolly numbers: 255,303,6911, 474,477 silver:47,gold:79.

                    Avatar

                    United States
                    Member #27625
                    December 4, 2005
                    88 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: December 20, 2005, 8:38 pm - IP Logged

                    "As The Lotto Turns"...is this a soap opera script?

                      cv844's avatar - Lottery-049.jpg
                      texas
                      United States
                      Member #4689
                      May 17, 2004
                      4121 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: December 20, 2005, 9:03 pm - IP Logged

                      Ms. Ionson says that Mr. Sobeski took her to the Woodstock Quality Inn for a night of lovemaking in their favorite room, "which included a whirlpool and a fireplace," yet failed to mention that he had just won $30 million.

                      Ms. Ionson's new documents paint a far different picture: "Ray and I had a very passionate and loving relationship," she says. ". . . it is obvious from the events of April 2, 2004, when upon picking up a check for $30 million he called me and arranged to see me and spend the night with me rather than anyone else, that we were together in a close marital relationship at the time."

                      Liar Liar Pants on fire! When in doubt, never believe the one who is obsessed with the grabbing.

                      seems both their pants were on fire  Green laugh

                      lol

                        Avatar

                        United States
                        Member #27625
                        December 4, 2005
                        88 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: December 20, 2005, 9:24 pm - IP Logged

                        Win the Lotto; make sure get a Blind Trust!

                        Why a Blind Trust? Please explain.

                          Avatar

                          United States
                          Member #24503
                          October 23, 2005
                          159 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: December 20, 2005, 10:59 pm - IP Logged

                          Ms. Ionson says that Mr. Sobeski took her to the Woodstock Quality Inn for a night of lovemaking in their favorite room, "which included a whirlpool and a fireplace," yet failed to mention that he had just won $30 million.

                          She says he's a lowlife, he says she's a moneygrubber.  Maybe they're both telling the truth.

                          If they're not married she's just a one-night stand he had the night after he won the lottery, and he was a one-night stand for her, giving her no more claim to his winnings than any other one night stand would have.

                          The kiddos are probably already getting some child support.  A judge will probably peruse that amount and see whether it should be adjusted.

                          But it's going to be a cat fight this ex probably won't win, seems to me.

                          Jack

                          I agree with everything you posted, particularly the 'they're both right' in regards to him being scum and she also being scum.

                          booty calls do not a long standing relationship prove.  they're just booty calls.  easy sex. no big deal.  what i don't get is that the article claims they were only married for 2 days.  there's so much wrong with this picture.

                           

                          at this point, regarding the children, i'd ask for a paternity test.

                            Avatar

                            United States
                            Member #24503
                            October 23, 2005
                            159 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: December 20, 2005, 11:01 pm - IP Logged

                            She is the "ex-wife", thus exonerating her to any claims or debts he has. Where is the problem in this case? Seems very clear. They are no longer married, nor is she entitled to his winfall. If he was 50,000 $ in debt I can guarantee you she wouldnt be court ordered to share his debt, instead she'd dodge him like the plague.....Vice Versa scenarios have a way of placing things in a different light I say.

                            ex's aren't responsible for debts accrued after the divorce, though, right?  beyond that, i agree with what you have stated, as well.