TROY, Ohio — Four Piqua residents are suing their city co-workers who won the $207 million Mega Millions lottery earlier this month, claiming the winners didn't keep their word about sharing any winnings with all regular players.
And they want $41 million.
A lawsuit claiming breach of contract and conversion was filed Tuesday, Dec. 23, in Miami County Common Pleas Court by Doug Harter, Israel Carnes, Tammy K. Wright and Jon Litchfield, all of Piqua.
Named as defendants are winners: Kenny Kirby, John Dembski, Richard Donnelly, James Montgomery, Cynthia Hershberger, Ritchie Williams, Scott Bradley, Dennis Steinke, Loyal Davis Jr., Rodney Stephenson, Jolaine Routson and Arthur J. Rudy, all of Piqua; Amos Steinbrunner of Tipp City; and Clifford Scott Helman of Piqua. The 15th winner, who is retired and did not work for the city, is not named in the suit.
The lawyer for the winners could not be reached immediately for comment.
In the suit, the four claim they are co-workers of some or all of the winners and said they and the winners pooled money to purchase tickets for the Mega Millions drawing.
"Plaintiffs and defendants had an oral agreement whereby if any of the pooled tickets purchased resulted in a winning Mega Millions ticket then all parties would share equally in the proceeds of said winning ticket," lawyers for the four, Erick Bauer and Robert Preston III of Dover, Ohio, wrote in the suit.
The four further claim they joined with the others in a pool for the Dec. 9 Mega Millions drawing from which some cash winnings allegedly were then used to purchase tickets for the Dec. 12 drawing. The co-workers had the winning numbers for the $207 million Dec. 12 drawing.
The four said they were out of the office and unavailable to contribute to the office pool for the Dec. 12 drawing.
When the winning ticket was presented to the Ohio Lottery, the four said, they "were not included ... contrary to the office pooling oral agreement/informal partnership/joint venture, and were not permitted to join with defendants in making a claim for the proceeds."
By not being included in the winnings, the four claim they have suffered immediate injury and an estimated loss of $41.4 million.
The four seek compensatory damages estimated at $41.4 million; punitive damages of inesxcess of $25,000; costs and attorney fees. They also seek a temporary restraining order and against the defendants.
A jury trial is requested.
No surprises here!
This is one of the major reason I won't join lottery pools. It seems like you have to go through so much hassel if your group wins. I rather just play by myself.
Oh boy! Here comes one of the reasons that agreements should be made in writing.
I'm with you TSC,
I sometimes think that if I joined a pool with "naturally Lucky people," I'd be okay, but I have never done it. Now I'm glad I didn't. This lawsuit is enough proof for me. There will be enough issues with family and friends that will call out of the cracks. The one sister I speak to, doesn't believe in the lottery even though she knows I play religiously and my few friends don't know I play. I still never say that I will help family and friends, so if I didn WHEN I win, it will be a surprise to all.
Wrong! Not should be! All Agreements are to be Mandatory for any POOL of any size! The Agreement is to be signed each time you pay/join in the pool! You Pay and then you sign the Mandatory Agreement!
No Pay, No Sign, No Play! End of Story!
Lottery pools suck for a variety of reasons.Being sued by jealous people that didn't kick in any money to the pool is just one of the reasons.Having to share a jackpot is another reason.
The four further claim they joined with the others in a pool for the Dec. 9 Mega Millions drawing from which some cash winnings allegedly were then used to purchase tickets for the Dec. 12 drawing. The co-workers had the winning numbers for the $207 million Dec. 12 drawing.
The four said they were out of the office and unavailable to contribute to the office pool for the Dec. 12 drawing.
Because they participated in the previous draw, I would have included them, to avoid any hassle in obtaining my jackpot winnings. It was such a large jackpot, in fact more money than they would have ever earned in their entire lives. They would have been all set, now they all have to wait for a judge to determine who gets what.
Let this be a lesson to all who play in a lottery pool!!!! Always have an agreement and always have the names of the people in the pool and the amount paid BEFORE the drawing. I think most people that play in pools never actually think they are going to win.
I had a good working pool going at my last job. Now that I switched jobs I no longer do it, not because of sharing the prize but because of all the work involved. Before each drawing I would photo copy all the tickets bought by the group, there was twenty of us. I did narrow it down to just six sets of copies. One of the rules was that all small prizes get banked towards a large jackpot such as the one that just played (As it appears they did). Because of that rule there was always money in case one or more of the players was out for some reason. It wouldn't have been fair to lose out because you were sick or on vacation we thought. And that person made up for it the following week. I'm not sure if theirs was one time thing or not, though according to the article, the money to purchase the tickets were from the prevouis winning (NOV 9th) of which they did contribute. Sooooo... It sounds like a weekly pool to me.
This is the reason I've never been in a lottery pool. I feel for the winners. They have to pay the legal
fees.
Whenever I played in a pool, when I was off, I made sure that my money was in BEFORE I left.
And when I ran a pool, I made sure that all regular players got asked.
Often when I knew that they were regular players, I often kicked in for them. I never had a problem collecting.
MarkP
From my perspective,i think the four are solely entitle to their shares of winning
for the fact,they stuck it in when they did not win anything.Why cant the money be share evenly amongst them
when whoever the head of their pool never thoght this life changing event was going to occur?
With this economy,their lawyers are going to fight to get 40%
of that pie.
GREED IS A HORRIBLE THING.
Don't let this happen to you! If you're going to run a pool put the rules in writing covering all the bases. Also, don't roll small winners into future draws.
Honestly, I don't think the plaintiffs have a case. The way I see it, you're only included in on a pool if you put in the money for the drawing in question. They didn't for that drawing.
In this case, I think the plaintiffs may have a good case (which is different than an easily provable case) for partial shares. If they participated in the 12/9 drawing and winnings from that drawing were used to buy tickets for the 12/12 drawing, then they were de facto participants in the 12/12 drawing. The only question would be how much they participated, and how the winnings should be divided.
If all 19 people (the original 15, and the 4 plaintiffs) normally played, each one would own 1/19th of any winnings from a drawing in which they participated. If the 15 put in $1 each and also used $10 in winnings from the previous drawing, they would have bought 25 tickets for the drawing that got them the jackpot. In that case the defendants should each be entitled to a 1/19th share of the 40% that could be attributed to the extra $10 in tickets.
Proving an oral contract to share in all winnings, even if they weren't around to chip in before the drawing is obviously difficult. Proving that money from a previous win was used could be much easier. As always, this is another good demonstration of why pools should have a written agreement that spells out all of the details, and in this case the details seem to include winning with tickets funded from a previous win. IMHO, settling on a set of numbers ahead of time is the only sensible way to run a pool, so that it will be clear whether or not any of wining tickets belong to the pool. Making photocopies of tickets is all well and good, but may not count for much if a QP wins a modest amount that then contributes to a bigger win that some people are left out of. OTOH, not requiring people to play for every drawing, and pay well ahead of time, is really stupid and begs for a lawsuit if a big prize is won.
Sparky, have you though about switching to de-caf? There's nothing mandatory about pool agreements. They're certainly a really good idea, but they're not mandatory. Players are free to risk losing a big chunk to lawyers because they weren't clever enough to thoink thisg through. The poster you quoted had if exactly right: the lawsuit is another example of the reason that the agreements *should* be in writing.
I have to agree with KY on this...If at any time money from winnings was used for future tickets then a claim can be made. If at any time a collection of money was made after the actual drawing, then you have set the rules, and that makes sense to a "reasonable person"! The original winners should meet discuss if these claims have ever happened in past drawings and decide whether to fight or add the 4 in, at least some fees will be saved if they choose to settle, If not, and the above claims happened at anytime with any type of consistancey then I would say that there odds of winning are going to be less than 50%...
Hey Quick Draw Mc Graw,
1) Have you ever thought to sit down and think before opening mouth?
2) I said Agreements are to be Mandatory (and of course in writing) if you wish to be apart of that Pool! Any agreement better be in writing, but any layman would automatically think it would be if so many people are to sign it after paying their money!
I think the kettle calling the pot black is the one who really needs the de-caf before shooting off the mouth uncontrollable!
I always play by myself. I never promise to take care of anyone. That does not mean that I won't help some people in my life. Always be careful what you say to anyone. I do know someone that would probably try to be entitled to my winnings if I were to win Powerball. This is an excellent reason that everyone should have the oppourtunity to be anonymous.
Sound familiar? https://www.lotterypost.com/news/135957
Did anybody not see this coming?
I agree,you don't have to go through all the problems,i 'm using a system to beat the odds hopefully i will win very soon.
I saw it coming and I knew a few others did as well. I think most of them better keep working because by the time this possibly gets worked out they might have even less of the JP winnings left.
Here's a New Year resolution for all Mega-Millions pools, count the number of draws for the year 2009, multiply that by the amount to be played for each drawing, from each player. Elect one or two from the group to be in charge. get the total amount from each player up front before the first drawing. Cash and retain any small prizes. If no jackpot was won everyone's payment for 2010 will be reduced equally by the winnings. Put it in writing, Everyone agrees to the rules or don't join, also if someone wants out midway pay him/her off. Alas if there are groups out there that can't trust each other then you shouldn't be in the pool in the first place.
Another office pool, another lawsuit.
It seems a bit unlikely that the people in the pool would refuse them their share if this was a legit case.
The pool even had no problem with 1 person getting two shares, because he put an extra dollar in for his mom.
That would make it seem clear that the pool required you to actually put in 1 dollar per share for a given drawing. Also, since these people each put in a dollar for this pool, any winnings that did roll over would give the other 4 a smaller share of the pie, not a full share. Bad day to miss work, move on with life.
Regardless of how this case turns out, it is just another black mark against office pools.
Whenever I run an office pool, I write up an explicit legal contract that all who play have to sign. It says that the pool is only for that drawing, that only those who have signed the agreement are entitled to any prizes, that any prizes won will be paid out, not rolled over, and that I will have the sole decision on whether the money will be taken up front or paid out as an annuity.
I don't buy personal tickets on a day I do an office pool, and I keep all of these contracts in a locked file cabinet in case we win someday and someone that played a year ago tries to pull this crap.
I think 41 million still leaves over $ 160 million , they are all co-workers who frequently contributed to the pool, but were unavailable that day. However, even in their absence, pool money was available with which to purchase the winning ticket.
My opinion is: quit making me sick and share. To be honest they should also quit their job and make openings for alot of their fellow unemployed people.
I agree with the idea of sharing and with the 'winnings' from the prior play coming into account I think they will receive something.
I also agree that in todays economy they should leave there jobs so others who are either unemployed or not making much can get access to those jobs. The winner’s new job should be how to live the rest of their lives on the money they won.
i 'm using a system to beat the odds hopefully i will win very soon.
You, me and about 50 other LP members are thinking they've got a system to beat the odds.
The cash option was around 146M. Quit making you sick? Are you one of the people suing? After everything is said and done many of them probably won't be able to quit anything once they finish with taxes and now paying lawyers. If you think that their quitting is just going to bring openings for someone else then you're kidding yourself, I'd bet most of those jobs won't be replaced. Not to mention the problems that could cause for the city to have 14-18 employees quit at once. If these people win then after taxes everyone but one player would end up with about 4.5M, that is if it's divided up equally, which these people bringing the suit clearly don't want to do if that amount is in reference to the cash option which has already been chosen. 41M divided between the four bringing this suit would equal around 6M, so who's the greedy ones?