Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 6, 2016, 3:06 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Piqua lottery winners sued by co-workers

Topic closed. 74 replies. Last post 8 years ago by KeithK.

Page 2 of 5
51
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
NY
United States
Member #23835
October 16, 2005
3474 Posts
Offline
Posted: December 24, 2008, 6:39 am - IP Logged

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.

    Avatar
    NY
    United States
    Member #23835
    October 16, 2005
    3474 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: December 24, 2008, 6:46 am - IP Logged

    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!

    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.

      fja's avatar - gnome1

      United States
      Member #91
      January 19, 2002
      11927 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: December 24, 2008, 7:16 am - IP Logged

      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.

      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%... 

      "Everybody has to believe in something...I believe I'll have another beer!"   = W.C.Fields                      

        BaristaExpress's avatar - BaristaExpressMX zpsfb0d8b5d.png
        Magnolia, Delaware
        United States
        Member #18795
        July 20, 2005
        789 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: December 24, 2008, 8:29 am - IP Logged

        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.

        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! 

        Keep dreaming the impossible dream, it just may come true! Thumbs Up

          dpoly1's avatar - driver
          PA
          United States
          Member #66141
          October 16, 2008
          1672 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: December 24, 2008, 10:06 am - IP Logged

          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.

            RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
            mid-Ohio
            United States
            Member #9
            March 24, 2001
            19825 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: December 24, 2008, 10:38 am - IP Logged

            Sound familiar?  http://www.lotterypost.com/news/135957

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

              Avatar
              New Member
              Georgia
              United States
              Member #64381
              August 26, 2008
              2 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: December 24, 2008, 10:54 am - IP Logged

              Did anybody not see this coming?

                foragoodcause's avatar - Lottery-021.jpg

                France
                Member #49288
                January 25, 2007
                40 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: December 24, 2008, 11:32 am - IP Logged

                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.

                  DC81's avatar - batman39
                  MI
                  United States
                  Member #54830
                  August 31, 2007
                  985 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: December 24, 2008, 12:08 pm - IP Logged

                  Did anybody not see this coming?

                  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.

                  You can't predict random.

                    MysteryMan424's avatar - batman22
                    Pelham NY
                    United States
                    Member #60411
                    April 16, 2008
                    169 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: December 24, 2008, 2:27 pm - IP Logged

                    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.

                      grengrad's avatar - nw rogue.jpg
                      Raleigh
                      United States
                      Member #49057
                      January 17, 2007
                      172 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: December 24, 2008, 5:29 pm - IP Logged

                      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.

                        Avatar

                        United States
                        Member #67870
                        December 7, 2008
                        154 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: December 24, 2008, 5:53 pm - IP Logged

                        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.

                          bashley572's avatar - starwars14
                          West Side of Sunny Florida
                          United States
                          Member #55048
                          September 8, 2007
                          3371 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: December 24, 2008, 6:11 pm - IP Logged

                          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.

                          Money won is twice as good as money earned!

                            RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                            mid-Ohio
                            United States
                            Member #9
                            March 24, 2001
                            19825 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: December 24, 2008, 6:25 pm - IP Logged

                            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 '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.

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

                              DC81's avatar - batman39
                              MI
                              United States
                              Member #54830
                              August 31, 2007
                              985 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: December 24, 2008, 6:30 pm - IP Logged

                              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.

                              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?

                              You can't predict random.