Lotto winner's ex-wife fights back

Dec 20, 2005, 7:57 am (37 comments)

Canada 6/49

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

Tags for this story

Other popular tags

Comments

winner2b

Win the Lotto; make sure get a Blind Trust!

Littleoldlady's avatarLittleoldlady

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.

fja's avatarfja

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

 

..Naughty

Rip Snorter

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

delS

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. 

Chewie

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.

emilyg's avataremilyg

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

RJOh's avatarRJOh

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). 

TheGameGrl's avatarTheGameGrl

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.

demonter

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

cv844's avatarcv844

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

demonter

Win the Lotto; make sure get a Blind Trust!

Why a Blind Trust? Please explain.

Iesha Kelly

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.

Iesha Kelly

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.

Subscribe to this news story
Guest