A woman who won a Tennseess Lottery scratch-off ticket worth over $1 million has sued the state for preventing her from assigning some of her winnings to a financial company in return for a lump sum payout.
Like other instant lottery winners, Ethel Newberry of Palmrya wasn't given the option to get the bulk of her winnings in cash up front. Instead, she gets annual payments of about $52,000 a year for a minimum of 20 years.
Newberry is asking the Davidson County Chancery Court to allow her to transfer half her payments, or 10 years worth, to Prosperity Partners Inc. of Lake Park, Fla. That would give her about $500,000 in cash to buy a house "equipped to accommodate the unfortunate disability of her son and fit her home for his long-term use," the suit states.
Newberry's attorneys contend she complied with state law by obtaining approval from Montgomery County Chancery Court. But the state Education Lottery Corp. refused to comply after the state Attorney General's office's advised it that state law prohibits the voluntary assignment of lottery prizes.
The suit seeks a court interpretation of an issue that is spelled out in some state lotteries, but is not clear-cut in Tennessee's two-year-old gaming law.
Prosperity Partners' Chief Operating Officer Tom Balletta said his company - one of several in the discount cash-flow industry - buys annuity payments from lottery winners all over the United States. This is the first time Prosperity has been in a position to challenge Tennessee's policy.
"Currently there is specific legislation in about 34 states that allow that transfer [of winnings], and that transfer requires a court order," he said.
"The law in Tennessee does not allow for voluntary transfers, except with an appropriate judicial order," he added. "We've got the appropriate judicial order. So far, the lottery commission has refused to abide by it."
Newberry's attorney, David Silvus, and Kym Gerlock, vice president of communications for the lottery, declined to comment about the case.
The suit states that Newberry won the lottery's "Win for Life Instant Game Prize," in July of last year.
Though Gerlock would not comment on the specific case, she said the top prize for "Win for Life" is $1,000 a week for life, a minimum of $1 million.
Two people have won that top prize in Tennessee, she said. The procedure calls for winners to get paid through yearly checks of $52,000, minus federal taxes, for as long as they live. The money can be passed onto their estate if they die.
The suit states that Newberry was informed by the lottery that she was entitled to $1.04 million to be paid in annual installments of $52,000 for 20 years. She proposes to transfer to Prosperity her annual checks from July 5, 2006 to July 2015.
Since the state lottery began in January 2004, officials have introduced more than 80 games, including five "online" games in which participants must wait until a state drawing before finding out whether they have the winning numbers.
Of those, only the Powerball, the multi-state game, allows a choice between a lump sum and installments, Gerlock said. On the other hand, some of the smaller cash games only have a one-time payment with no options for installments.
Balletta says almost all states with a lottery allow the winner a choice on lotto drawings. Typically, scratch-off winnings are only paid out in annuities, he said.
Companies like his cater to people with long-term cash flow, such as lottery and insurance payments, that are paid by recognizable, solid payers like a state or insurance company. If people need it, the company will provide the cash and basically trade places, accepting the annual payments as an investment.
Prosperity acts as a middleman, selling the annuities to insurance companies, which are happy to have a safe income stream that can earn predictable interest over the long-term, Balletta said.
Before you play, know the rules. In Louisiana, the state lottery was sued and wonbecause the winner did not want an annuity. Now LA state lottery players have a choice: Lump Sum or Annuity. The starting base for the jackpot and amount it would roll over was lowered and changed after that lawsuit. Might happen in Tennessee---just depends on how their law was written in regards to pay out options for that particular game. IF the game is not what you want, DON'T play it and try to change it!
I dislike "annuity only" winnings, but the rules were posted when she bought the ticket - if you don't accept the rules buy Powerball. I dislike 3rd party payouts even more - why give part of your winnings to shady companies when the state can and should write you a check? I especially dislike sore winners for whom even an extra $52,000 a year isn't enough - how would she have bought a house like that if she didn't win? Count your blessings, lady, think of the caretakers of the disabled who don't have an extra $52,000 a year coming in.
I sure hope TN isn't looking to join the coming numbers game Lose for Life. ALL winners (numbers or scratch; fixed annuity or lifetime) SHOULD have the option of collecting in lump sum.
I dislike "annuity only" winnings, but the rules were posted when she bought the ticket - if you don't accept the rules buy Powerball. I dislike 3rd party payouts even more - why give part of your winnings to shady companies when the state can and should write you a check? I especially dislike sore winners for whom even an extra $52,000 a year isn't enough - how would she have bought a house like that if she didn't win? Count your blessings, lady, think of the caretakers of the disabled who don't have an extra $52,000 a year coming in.
What makes her a sore winner? Just like most people, she's essentially trying to borrow money against her future income. Why she's trying to do it through the company instead of simply getting a mortgage is puzzling, though. Current rates are low enough that I'm skeptical that she'd get a better deal through the outfit she's using, especially after adding the expense of a lawsuit.
Before you play, know the rules. In Louisiana, the state lottery was sued and wonbecause the winner did not want an annuity. Now LA state lottery players have a choice: Lump Sum or Annuity. The starting base for the jackpot and amount it would roll over was lowered and changed after that lawsuit. Might happen in Tennessee---just depends on how their law was written in regards to pay out options for that particular game. IF the game is not what you want, DON'T play it and try to change it!
Isn't Louisiana Lotto now all-cash? AFAIK it went from annuity-only to cash only.
just in case there are any other lotto winners here with an annuity. i can do the same thing for them. plug plug plug. i am a cash flow consultant too.
I dislike "annuity only" winnings, but the rules were posted when she bought the ticket - if you don't accept the rules buy Powerball. I dislike 3rd party payouts even more - why give part of your winnings to shady companies when the state can and should write you a check? I especially dislike sore winners for whom even an extra $52,000 a year isn't enough - how would she have bought a house like that if she didn't win? Count your blessings, lady, think of the caretakers of the disabled who don't have an extra $52,000 a year coming in.
What makes her a sore winner? Just like most people, she's essentially trying to borrow money against her future income. Why she's trying to do it through the company instead of simply getting a mortgage is puzzling, though. Current rates are low enough that I'm skeptical that she'd get a better deal through the outfit she's using, especially after adding the expense of a lawsuit.
I guess I said that because happy winners usually don't sue the lottery, they just cash their checks. I agree, it is puzzling. What she says and what she actually does with the money may be two different things. Her willingess to accept the loss of money on the annuity transaction and the loss of money to legal fees are a sign that she urgently needs a pile of cash for some reason, but only she knows exactly what that is.
I dislike "annuity only" winnings, but the rules were posted when she bought the ticket - if you don't accept the rules buy Powerball. I dislike 3rd party payouts even more - why give part of your winnings to shady companies when the state can and should write you a check? I especially dislike sore winners for whom even an extra $52,000 a year isn't enough - how would she have bought a house like that if she didn't win? Count your blessings, lady, think of the caretakers of the disabled who don't have an extra $52,000 a year coming in.
What makes her a sore winner? Just like most people, she's essentially trying to borrow money against her future income. Why she's trying to do it through the company instead of simply getting a mortgage is puzzling, though. Current rates are low enough that I'm skeptical that she'd get a better deal through the outfit she's using, especially after adding the expense of a lawsuit.
I guess I said that because happy winners usually don't sue the lottery, they just cash their checks. I agree, it is puzzling. What she says and what she actually does with the money may be two different things. Her willingess to accept the loss of money on the annuity transaction and the loss of money to legal fees are a sign that she urgently needs a pile of cash for some reason, but only she knows exactly what that is.
Her rational is:
Newberry is asking the Davidson County Chancery Court to allow her to transfer half her payments, or 10 years worth, to Prosperity Partners Inc. of Lake Park, Fla. That would give her about $500,000 in cash to buy a house "equipped to accommodate the unfortunate disability of her son and fit her home for his long-term use," the suit states.
Pretty good reason. If there are other ways, she choose the one that works for her. Remember, money doesn't make you smarter.
And a one time big Federal income tax is going to come out of the big check too. I would think a financial advisor would have been the one to see first to figure it out. How much the lawyers gonna get too.
She should have gotten a financial advisor first..but people from these parts only think lawyer, lawyer, lawyer..when he finishes ..she won't have squat..probably the reason for only 10 years worth is by the time they finish with her, that is all she'll have left.
Too bad she doesn't have any firends looking out for her. Makes you wonder why she doesn't have some one to guide her. Luckily I have some GOOD friends who have no problem slapping the back of my head!
Before you play, know the rules. In Louisiana, the state lottery was sued and won because the winner did not want an annuity. Now LA state lottery players have a choice: Lump Sum or Annuity. The starting base for the jackpot and amount it would roll over was lowered and changed after that lawsuit. Might happen in Tennessee---just depends on how their law was written in regards to pay out options for that particular game. IF the game is not what you want, DON'T play it and try to change it!
I dislike "annuity only" winnings, but the rules were posted when she bought the ticket - if you don't accept the rules buy Powerball. I dislike 3rd party payouts even more - why give part of your winnings to shady companies when the state can and should write you a check? I especially dislike sore winners for whom even an extra $52,000 a year isn't enough - how would she have bought a house like that if she didn't win? Count your blessings, lady, think of the caretakers of the disabled who don't have an extra $52,000 a year coming in.
I sure hope TN isn't looking to join the coming numbers game Lose for Life. ALL winners (numbers or scratch; fixed annuity or lifetime) SHOULD have the option of collecting in lump sum.
I dislike "annuity only" winnings, but the rules were posted when she bought the ticket - if you don't accept the rules buy Powerball. I dislike 3rd party payouts even more - why give part of your winnings to shady companies when the state can and should write you a check? I especially dislike sore winners for whom even an extra $52,000 a year isn't enough - how would she have bought a house like that if she didn't win? Count your blessings, lady, think of the caretakers of the disabled who don't have an extra $52,000 a year coming in.
What makes her a sore winner? Just like most people, she's essentially trying to borrow money against her future income. Why she's trying to do it through the company instead of simply getting a mortgage is puzzling, though. Current rates are low enough that I'm skeptical that she'd get a better deal through the outfit she's using, especially after adding the expense of a lawsuit.
Before you play, know the rules. In Louisiana, the state lottery was sued and won because the winner did not want an annuity. Now LA state lottery players have a choice: Lump Sum or Annuity. The starting base for the jackpot and amount it would roll over was lowered and changed after that lawsuit. Might happen in Tennessee---just depends on how their law was written in regards to pay out options for that particular game. IF the game is not what you want, DON'T play it and try to change it!
Isn't Louisiana Lotto now all-cash? AFAIK it went from annuity-only to cash only.
Yep, it sure is. The state lotto is all cash only. And you know, the jackpot rarely reaches $1,000,000.00
just in case there are any other lotto winners here with an annuity. i can do the same thing for them. plug plug plug. i am a cash flow consultant too.
I dislike "annuity only" winnings, but the rules were posted when she bought the ticket - if you don't accept the rules buy Powerball. I dislike 3rd party payouts even more - why give part of your winnings to shady companies when the state can and should write you a check? I especially dislike sore winners for whom even an extra $52,000 a year isn't enough - how would she have bought a house like that if she didn't win? Count your blessings, lady, think of the caretakers of the disabled who don't have an extra $52,000 a year coming in.
What makes her a sore winner? Just like most people, she's essentially trying to borrow money against her future income. Why she's trying to do it through the company instead of simply getting a mortgage is puzzling, though. Current rates are low enough that I'm skeptical that she'd get a better deal through the outfit she's using, especially after adding the expense of a lawsuit.
I guess I said that because happy winners usually don't sue the lottery, they just cash their checks. I agree, it is puzzling. What she says and what she actually does with the money may be two different things. Her willingess to accept the loss of money on the annuity transaction and the loss of money to legal fees are a sign that she urgently needs a pile of cash for some reason, but only she knows exactly what that is.
I dislike "annuity only" winnings, but the rules were posted when she bought the ticket - if you don't accept the rules buy Powerball. I dislike 3rd party payouts even more - why give part of your winnings to shady companies when the state can and should write you a check? I especially dislike sore winners for whom even an extra $52,000 a year isn't enough - how would she have bought a house like that if she didn't win? Count your blessings, lady, think of the caretakers of the disabled who don't have an extra $52,000 a year coming in.
What makes her a sore winner? Just like most people, she's essentially trying to borrow money against her future income. Why she's trying to do it through the company instead of simply getting a mortgage is puzzling, though. Current rates are low enough that I'm skeptical that she'd get a better deal through the outfit she's using, especially after adding the expense of a lawsuit.
I guess I said that because happy winners usually don't sue the lottery, they just cash their checks. I agree, it is puzzling. What she says and what she actually does with the money may be two different things. Her willingess to accept the loss of money on the annuity transaction and the loss of money to legal fees are a sign that she urgently needs a pile of cash for some reason, but only she knows exactly what that is.
Newberry is asking the Davidson County Chancery Court to allow her to transfer half her payments, or 10 years worth, to Prosperity Partners Inc. of Lake Park, Fla. That would give her about $500,000 in cash to buy a house "equipped to accommodate the unfortunate disability of her son and fit her home for his long-term use," the suit states.
Pretty good reason. If there are other ways, she choose the one that works for her. Remember, money doesn't make you smarter.
She *says* that is the reason, but after she gets the money it might be a different story.
She *says* that is the reason, but after she gets the money it might be a different story.
OR - might still be the reason. Be positive! Not everyone speaks like a politician.
And a one time big Federal income tax is going to come out of the big check too.
I would think a financial advisor would have been the one to see first to figure it out.
How much the lawyers gonna get too.
She should have gotten a financial advisor first..but people from these parts only think lawyer, lawyer, lawyer..when he finishes ..she won't have squat..probably the reason for only 10 years worth is by the time they finish with her, that is all she'll have left.
Too bad she doesn't have any firends looking out for her. Makes you wonder why she doesn't have some one to guide her. Luckily I have some GOOD friends who have no problem slapping the back of my head!