Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 4, 2016, 9:25 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Lawsuit over $315 million lottery jackpot goes to trial

Topic closed. 37 replies. Last post 10 years ago by dvdiva.

Page 2 of 3
PrintE-mailLink
konane's avatar - wallace
Atlanta, GA
United States
Member #1265
March 13, 2003
3333 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 7, 2006, 7:57 pm - IP Logged

"the group had an oral agreement that everyone would be included whenever they pooled money to buy tickets."

so he was not there to pooled his money so therefore I don't see why there is a court case,Disapprove

The meaning of such an agreement seems crystal clear.  If the group had an agreement that "everyone would be included" whenever they (which means the whole group, and not just the part of the group that is present at any given time) bought tickets then everyone who was part of the group is included. Collecting the ticket money from somebody who isn't there when the rest of the group chips in for the tickets is just one of many details that don't invalidate the rest of the agreement. Whether or not there really was an agreement, and what the agreement was, is what the dispute is about. Seven people buying 21 tickets is a good indication that when they bought the tickets they didn't intend to share any winnings with an eighth person, but their intent at the time would be meaningless if there was a valid previous agreement.

Apparently this group didn't have a written agreement, and now they're getting exactly what they should have expected.

Seems even more prudent for every pool to state that every draw is a separate stand alone agreement among participants which begins when money is collected for a specific drawing among those listed as paying and does not carry forward to any future drawing. 

That way it is a separate entity unto itself with no ties stated or implied which could potentially link it to any other drawing pool in the future.

Seems simple enough to me, its intent easily understood in court and perhaps would not fatten so many lawyers pockets.  The last part is the one I like best!!  Big Grin

Good luck to everyone!

    TheGameGrl's avatar - character catafly.jpg
    A long and winding road
    United States
    Member #17084
    June 10, 2005
    4524 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: June 7, 2006, 10:32 pm - IP Logged

    Firstly, the guys case is boarderline ridiculous! Whilst oral agreements can sometimes be upheld in court ( example: an engagement that is cancelled- is constiuted as an oral agreement to become betrothed)- The fiancee' that was jilted DOES often win because a legal promise to wed was announced.

    Second- emails can be altered and are not a source of valid confirmation of the actual respondant. Get it on paper and in legible print. Pools CAN work, its the rules and abidance that guides them.

    My advice to the judge- toss the case. To the letigant- get honest, get real and get lost if you think for one second you deserve to weasel in when you didnt pay! To the REAL winners, may you savor your winnings !

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

     Thanks be to the giving numbers: 1621,912,119 02014

      RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
      mid-Ohio
      United States
      Member #9
      March 24, 2001
      19823 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: June 8, 2006, 1:45 am - IP Logged

      If the date April 2 is right then this guy has successfully held up his co-workers getting all their money for another year or so.  If the court accepts his version of the so-called oral agreement to share with everyone then everyone one in the work area of these lottery winners are entitled to a share of their winnings.

      This Jonathan De La Cruz is a lot like Betty Domingo of Lubbock, Texas http://www.lotterypost.com/news/135160.htm who sued all her co-worker for a share of their lottery winnings because one of the pool member didn't cover her when she didn't contribute money to the pool.

      There may be people here at LP who may be thinking by contributing ideas and posting numbers that they will be entitled to a share of any large jackpot won by another member if they can locate him.

      This case is worst than I first thought, according to: http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1171259.php

      Jennifer Habib, Joyce Onori, Mariza Cuya, Bob Guerzon, Brenda Heller, Kathy Jones and Kate Lynn Juergens – dubbed the “Lucky 7” – won the second-largest lottery jackpot in U.S. history. Each got a lump sum of $20.2 million.

      Then, the lawsuits started.

      Jonathan De La Cruz sued in December. He wants $39 million.

      Robby Telah and Jose Mendoza sued separately in February and asked for the same amount.

      All three co-workers had “oral agreements” with the winners to be part of the office pool, said their attorney, Mark Williams.

      A fourth co-worker sued the winners and the director of the California Lottery Commission last month. Orleans Victor McFoy calls himself the “Lucky Eighth,” according to his lawsuit. He wants $25 million.

      A judge today scheduled a trial for April 2, 2007, in De La Cruz’s lawsuit. Another hearing on the case is scheduled for Tuesday.

      “It’s the Lotto winners’ problem,” said Larry Zeman, a lawyer for the “Lucky 7.” “Once you win the lottery, you become a victim to these lawsuits.”

                                              ******
      It could be years before these winners get access to all their winnings or worst yet they could end up owing their co-workers more than they won.  If this doesn't demonstrates why having a lottery pool at your work place  is a bad idea, I don't know what does.

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

        bellyache's avatar - 64x64a9wg

        United States
        Member #12618
        March 18, 2005
        2060 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: June 8, 2006, 2:21 am - IP Logged

        Wow...that's crazy. Everyone and their mom is claiming to be a part of that lottery pool.

          rundown99's avatar - cigar

          United States
          Member #567
          August 14, 2002
          482 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: June 8, 2006, 3:33 am - IP Logged

          If the date April 2 is right then this guy has successfully held up his co-workers getting all their money for another year or so.  If the court accepts his version of the so-called oral agreement to share with everyone then everyone one in the work area of these lottery winners are entitled to a share of their winnings.

          This Jonathan De La Cruz is a lot like Betty Domingo of Lubbock, Texas http://www.lotterypost.com/news/135160.htm who sued all her co-worker for a share of their lottery winnings because one of the pool member didn't cover her when she didn't contribute money to the pool.

          There may be people here at LP who may be thinking by contributing ideas and posting numbers that they will be entitled to a share of any large jackpot won by another member if they can locate him.

          This case is worst than I first thought, according to: http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1171259.php

          Jennifer Habib, Joyce Onori, Mariza Cuya, Bob Guerzon, Brenda Heller, Kathy Jones and Kate Lynn Juergens – dubbed the “Lucky 7” – won the second-largest lottery jackpot in U.S. history. Each got a lump sum of $20.2 million.

          Then, the lawsuits started.

          Jonathan De La Cruz sued in December. He wants $39 million.

          Robby Telah and Jose Mendoza sued separately in February and asked for the same amount.

          All three co-workers had “oral agreements” with the winners to be part of the office pool, said their attorney, Mark Williams.

          A fourth co-worker sued the winners and the director of the California Lottery Commission last month. Orleans Victor McFoy calls himself the “Lucky Eighth,” according to his lawsuit. He wants $25 million.

          A judge today scheduled a trial for April 2, 2007, in De La Cruz’s lawsuit. Another hearing on the case is scheduled for Tuesday.

          “It’s the Lotto winners’ problem,” said Larry Zeman, a lawyer for the “Lucky 7.” “Once you win the lottery, you become a victim to these lawsuits.”

                                                  ******
          It could be years before these winners get access to all their winnings or worst yet they could end up owing their co-workers more than they won.  If this doesn't demonstrates why having a lottery pool at your work place  is a bad idea, I don't know what does.

          RjOH

           

          Does this mean that until the court case is resolved that NO ONE gets ANY of THAT money?  So you mean that ever since late last year, NO ONE got ANY money WHATSOEVER?  IS that how it is for these lawsuits?  Or can the winners get the money anyway while the trial is pending?

          Smart lottery winners form trust to claim their winnings.  They send an attorney to the lottery headquarters to claim the prize in trust, so that ONLY the name of the trust is revealed.  And they tell NO ONE, especially relatives.

          If you ever win a lottery and you are single, the only person you should ever marry is someone who was truly in love with you BEFORE you won the jackpot!

            konane's avatar - wallace
            Atlanta, GA
            United States
            Member #1265
            March 13, 2003
            3333 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: June 8, 2006, 9:17 am - IP Logged

            The lawyers are slugging it out for the money "earned" through their fees, the heck with whether winners get a penny.

            Have heard a suggestion that if someone sues someone else and loses,  loser in lawsuits pays all court costs and all attorney fees including those of the defendant .... which would likely eliminate a lot of "let's file and see if they pay us to go away" stuff clogging the court system.

            Also my above suggestion that (stated in writing of course) each drawing represents a separate pool which begins and ends with a particular drawing and does not tie into any previous or future one.  Similar principle as having some of today's winning numbers last week's ticket doesn't entitle me to any of todays winnings  AND another argument offered here on LP that simply buying a ticket for a drawing gives ownership to winnings in that drawing.

            Good luck to everyone!

              RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
              mid-Ohio
              United States
              Member #9
              March 24, 2001
              19823 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: June 8, 2006, 10:29 am - IP Logged

              rundown99,

              I don't know the particulars of this case but in similar cases that I've read about some of the winnings were usually held up until the law suits were settled. 

              RJOh

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

                teacake58's avatar - Lottery-012.jpg
                AL
                United States
                Member #29698
                January 5, 2006
                1141 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: June 8, 2006, 11:30 am - IP Logged

                my pool signed a contract if you don't pay you don't get paid lol

                  Avatar
                  Portland
                  United States
                  Member #7262
                  September 27, 2004
                  111 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: June 8, 2006, 12:10 pm - IP Logged

                  With me, I have no problem with lottery pool but the thing that If I miss one drawing and that drawing hit ?? I just terribly cry and the winning members may not give any pitty on me. So better than all, I usually play myself!heehee

                    csfb's avatar - Lottery-001.jpg

                    United States
                    Member #15309
                    May 13, 2005
                    307 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: June 8, 2006, 12:30 pm - IP Logged

                    The lawyers are slugging it out for the money "earned" through their fees, the heck with whether winners get a penny.

                    Have heard a suggestion that if someone sues someone else and loses,  loser in lawsuits pays all court costs and all attorney fees including those of the defendant .... which would likely eliminate a lot of "let's file and see if they pay us to go away" stuff clogging the court system.

                    Also my above suggestion that (stated in writing of course) each drawing represents a separate pool which begins and ends with a particular drawing and does not tie into any previous or future one.  Similar principle as having some of today's winning numbers last week's ticket doesn't entitle me to any of todays winnings  AND another argument offered here on LP that simply buying a ticket for a drawing gives ownership to winnings in that drawing.

                    Parties to some cases actually include in their prayers that all costs and attorney fees be paid for by the losing party.  This detracts people from filing frivolous lawsuits.  In addition the attorney is heftily penalized by the court for filing a patently frivolous case.

                    Actually, I'm glad the court is hearing this case.  The decision in this case will be pursuasive guide to all other lottery pools similarly situated.  If this case reaches the CA Supreme Court, and decides to hear it, then the decision becomes the law of the state, and pursuasive in other states.  If the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, and the highest court hears it, then, the decision becomes the law on lottery pools in every state.

                     

                      csfb's avatar - Lottery-001.jpg

                      United States
                      Member #15309
                      May 13, 2005
                      307 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: June 8, 2006, 12:36 pm - IP Logged

                      rundown99,

                      I don't know the particulars of this case but in similar cases that I've read about some of the winnings were usually held up until the law suits were settled. 

                      RJOh

                      That is true, RJOH.  In other cases, the monies are released but the defendant is required to file a bond to take care of damages in case he loses.  It's case by case basis.

                        RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                        mid-Ohio
                        United States
                        Member #9
                        March 24, 2001
                        19823 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: June 8, 2006, 2:59 pm - IP Logged

                        The lawyers are slugging it out for the money "earned" through their fees, the heck with whether winners get a penny.

                        Have heard a suggestion that if someone sues someone else and loses,  loser in lawsuits pays all court costs and all attorney fees including those of the defendant .... which would likely eliminate a lot of "let's file and see if they pay us to go away" stuff clogging the court system.

                        Also my above suggestion that (stated in writing of course) each drawing represents a separate pool which begins and ends with a particular drawing and does not tie into any previous or future one.  Similar principle as having some of today's winning numbers last week's ticket doesn't entitle me to any of todays winnings  AND another argument offered here on LP that simply buying a ticket for a drawing gives ownership to winnings in that drawing.

                        Parties to some cases actually include in their prayers that all costs and attorney fees be paid for by the losing party.  This detracts people from filing frivolous lawsuits.  In addition the attorney is heftily penalized by the court for filing a patently frivolous case.

                        Actually, I'm glad the court is hearing this case.  The decision in this case will be pursuasive guide to all other lottery pools similarly situated.  If this case reaches the CA Supreme Court, and decides to hear it, then the decision becomes the law of the state, and pursuasive in other states.  If the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, and the highest court hears it, then, the decision becomes the law on lottery pools in every state.

                         

                        If you follow lottery disputes, then you might remember this case from a few years back.
                         
                        http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume01/038/770.htm

                        Supreme Court Says No Verbal Agreements In Million Dollar Lottery Ticket Dispute
                         
                        In Alabama the law prohibits the forming of a gambling contract. So due to this technicality Tonda Dickerson, despite agreeing to share her winnings with four co-workers if her ticket won the state lottery, can keep all of the money to herself. 

                        In March 1999, a regular at the chain's Grand Bay restaurant, Edward Seward, handed out lottery tickets to all five workers. The ticket held by Dickerson contained the winning combination of numbers 3-4-7-36-39-40. When Dickerson denied there was an agreement to share the proceeds, the foursome filed a lawsuit.

                        It was later discovered that Dickerson lied about there not being an agreement, and that the group had made a sharing agreement between themselves, however this doesn’t mean sh** since what they did is illegal in the great state of Alabama. 

                        This cases was covered on CBS 60min news program, even Edward Seward who bought all the tickets and gave them out didn't get a penny. 

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

                          konane's avatar - wallace
                          Atlanta, GA
                          United States
                          Member #1265
                          March 13, 2003
                          3333 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: June 8, 2006, 3:21 pm - IP Logged

                          RJ do you remember if that ruling was done by the US Supreme Court, or the Alabama Supreme Court?

                          Good luck to everyone!

                            RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                            mid-Ohio
                            United States
                            Member #9
                            March 24, 2001
                            19823 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: June 8, 2006, 3:51 pm - IP Logged

                            RJ do you remember if that ruling was done by the US Supreme Court, or the Alabama Supreme Court?

                            That was the Alabama Supreme Court.  The tickets were bought in Florida but its courts refused to hear the case since none of the complainers were citizens of that state.

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

                              Avatar
                              nassau
                              Bahamas
                              Member #1369
                              April 13, 2003
                              73 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: June 8, 2006, 5:45 pm - IP Logged

                              my pool signed a contract if you don't pay you don't get paid lol

                              "that sums up this whole matter" you don't play you can't get paid!!