Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 2, 2016, 7:21 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Couple at odds over Powerball lottery prize

Topic closed. 33 replies. Last post 8 years ago by GamerMom.

Page 2 of 3
31
PrintE-mailLink
Winning K's avatar - Lottery-018.jpg
IL.
United States
Member #10029
December 31, 2004
44 Posts
Offline
Posted: February 4, 2009, 8:25 pm - IP Logged

If I gave a friend money to pay and pick up my car from the repair shop, does that then become his car?

She's stupid for having three children by a man who didn't care enough about her to marry her and be a father to his kids. Shock, shock he took her winning ticket for himself, haven't he been taking for himself all along. This man didn't ask her for a loan to get the tickets and the man who took him to the store knows the truth. I should be on the jury, not only would I make him give back the winnings for the ticket, she should ask the judge to set up child support payments, which I bet he is not paying. You would think the people at the first lottery stop would tell her to sign her ticket. It would be nice if both agreed to start a college trust fund for their kids. Minus taxes that would leave less than $50,000 per child.

Winning K.

    Avatar
    NY
    United States
    Member #23835
    October 16, 2005
    3471 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: February 5, 2009, 2:28 am - IP Logged

    I guess money really can change people....Sad story,but things happen..

    The money didn't change this guy a single bit. It just gave him the chance to show who he's been all along.

      Avatar
      NY
      United States
      Member #23835
      October 16, 2005
      3471 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: February 5, 2009, 2:34 am - IP Logged
      Looking at it from a strictly legal point of view (not ethical point of view), HE bought the ticket, HE signed the ticket.  She SAYS she gave him the money, but even if true he can repay her the few dollars -- "It was just a loan, your honor.  Here's her $4 after the cost of the Coke."  The guy who drove him to the store has just as much right to claim part of the winnings as she does -- he supplied car and gas.   
       
      This guy might owe more child support on the 3 kids (I would get a paternity test), but he doesn't have to give her half the money.  If they were married, yes.  Not married, living in separate residences, no.
       
      Plus, he's not going to get $200,000 -- he has to pay taxes on it -- and now legal fees, court costs due to her.
       
      One interesting thing is one brother is an attorney, while the other lives at the Budget Inn motel?   Wow, what a difference.

      Who bought the ticket or who signed it, doesn't necessarily matter. The story isn't clear, and we have no idea what their intent was at the time the ticket was bought, or how much of her side is, or isn't true. It's possible that the money was a loan, but if it was, why did she give him instructions on what to do with it? It's also possible that they had some pre-existing plan to buy tickets, and that's why she told him to spend the rest of the money on tickets.  In that case he may have been acting as her agent when he bought the ticket and that would make her the owner.   Of course, proving what happened and what their intent was is likely to be difficult. If she's really lucky, perhaps something that would help her was said on the first attempt to collect the prize, but I wouldn't count on it. OTOH, she may have a  chance at having some of the money seized to make sure he pays child support

        OldSchoolPa's avatar - Lottery-057.jpg
        Gurnee, Illinois
        United States
        Member #49731
        February 12, 2007
        917 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: February 5, 2009, 8:47 am - IP Logged

        Alright, it looks like a lot of people are reading into this story or misinterpreting what actually happened.  So let's break it down because aside from if this guy owes back child support (that is, presuming this woman has actually filed to receive it), that is the only thing that he would LEGALLY owe.

        Saul was at Newsome's residence the week of Jan. 11, when he said he wanted to go the store, according to Newsome.

        "The defendant asked the plaintiff for money, and the plaintiff provided $6 to the defendant. The defendant mentioned buying lottery tickets, and the plaintiff instructed the defendant to buy a two liter drink that the defendant wanted, and to buy Powerball lottery tickets with the remainder," the complaint says.

         So looking at what was said and written, it was the GUY who wanted to go to the store in the first place and the only thing HE mentioned buying was LOTTERY TICKETS.  It was the PLANTIFF (WOMAN) who told the GUY to buy a two liter drink (man only people who want soda pop on the cheap would buy those two liter bottles...those things are terrible as you have to drink it all up soon after opening it or else it will go flat quick fast and in a hurry...uhg nasty!) first and, as if instructing a child, to buy the tickets with the remainder.  So to summarize, broke ass GUY wanted to buy lottery tickets; MOTHERLIKE PLANTIFF wanted to ensure that HE bought something tangible instead of just all Powerball tickets and gave HIM the money to buy those items.  I don't see her saying that SHE wanted HIM to buy HER some lottery tickets.  So the tickets are HIS bought with HER money (a non-implied loan or gift).

        They couple later learned their ticket matched the first five numbers chosen in the lottery, but not the Powerball number, meaning they fell short of the main prize but won $200,000.

        Now this appears to be HER point of view because the truth of the matter is whether HE shared with HER that it was a winning ticket, IT is actually HIS ticket...read on.

        They first went to collect the money together in Knoxville, but were informed at the lottery office there that they would have to go to Nashville.

        The next day, Jan 24, Newsome found that Saul had disappeared with the winning ticket, and she could not reach him on his cell phone.

        She eventually learned that he had gone to the Nashville lottery office with his brother, who is an attorney, and claimed the proceeds.

        So it looks like at first SHE wanted to accompany HIM to collect the winnings, but if SHE really was a lottery player (after all she had the home and he was staying in some low budget motel), she would have known by referencing the lottery website where THEY would have needed to go in order to collect the winnings.  I imagine that GUY just asked where the nearest lottery office and ALLOWED HER to accompany HIM there (seeing as how HE didn't have a license to drive...so that's makes sense.).

        So after going to the wrong lottery office, GUY had a chance to talk to HIS brother (the attorney) who probably told HIM that he would be willing to take HIM to the Nashville office to collect the winnings...and perhaps that given the circumstances at how HE came to buy that ticket, that HIS girl might raise a stink and try to have her name included on the ticket and check.  So seeing how SMART GUY (I say Smart because HE apparently had enough sense to NOT marry ol' girl even though HE has plugged her up 3 times and to not answer HIS cellphone when ol' girl tried to call HIM as HE was enroute or already in Nashville getting that check minus the withheld taxes) wanted to maintain HIS self-preservation stance, HE took HIS Brother's offer of ride assistance.  SHE is pissed off that SHE couldn't run her game to get included on the check, or to watch over HIM as HE went down to the corner payday check cashing place to cash the check and to be able to then demand how ever much of it that she wanted.  To that I say this GUY was SMART for forseeing what would have happened in that instance.

        If HE must pay child support, so be it.  Opening a college fund would be admirable, but doing so doesn't guarantee that those funds plus whatever capital gains, dividends and interest will be there when the children get to college age (presuming they just attend public school up until that time) as the custodian can raid the fund before that time.  Yes she could!  It happens all the time with people in the lower economic group that find themselves living paycheck to paycheck...so they think...hmmm, I got this money sitting over here for my kids...let me tap into that.

        If anything, it would be good for the GUY to invest in himself to boost up HIS earning power and a prudent thing to do would be to also invest a small portion of those winnings and use some portion to find a better housing arrangement.  Don't know why ol' boy doesn't have his drivers license...could have never had one or more probable, ol' boy has a suspended license for whatever reason...DUI...no insurance...too many moving violations.

        So you can see, the ticket possession issue is clear cut.  There are other things that are murky.  Ol' girl has no basis for this injunction, and I would expect it to be thrown out of court...of course, we never hear about how things of this nature are eventually resolved unless you live in the same area as the drama (like the Idaho $1M dollar ticket the customer didn't want, so was it the clerks or the stores...the Ohio Mega Millions group that tried to exclude 3 or 4 people who had contributed to the previous draw but were out of town but the winnings from that previous draw was used to purchase the numbers from which the winning ticket came!).

        Get MONEY!!! Winning a JACKPOT lottery is all the HOPE and CHANGE I desire!!!  NOW give me MONEY!US Flag

        The guy who won the presidency in 2008 really won the lottery...he is now millions richer, travels in first class style, and even has a staff that would be the envy of the richest Powerball winner (she has a staff of 2). Every night he goes to sleep, he probably plays the close of Dave Chappelle's Show: I'm rich beyatch!

          fja's avatar - gnome1

          United States
          Member #91
          January 19, 2002
          11906 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: February 5, 2009, 10:39 am - IP Logged

          Who bought the ticket or who signed it, doesn't necessarily matter. The story isn't clear, and we have no idea what their intent was at the time the ticket was bought, or how much of her side is, or isn't true. It's possible that the money was a loan, but if it was, why did she give him instructions on what to do with it? It's also possible that they had some pre-existing plan to buy tickets, and that's why she told him to spend the rest of the money on tickets.  In that case he may have been acting as her agent when he bought the ticket and that would make her the owner.   Of course, proving what happened and what their intent was is likely to be difficult. If she's really lucky, perhaps something that would help her was said on the first attempt to collect the prize, but I wouldn't count on it. OTOH, she may have a  chance at having some of the money seized to make sure he pays child support

          I Agree! Alot of people here are buying the story at face value.  The kids are the only victims, and if she wanted to add to the story she could have bashed him on support when they wrote it.  i'll wait and see what the judge says on this one.   

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

            konane's avatar - wallace
            Atlanta, GA
            United States
            Member #1265
            March 13, 2003
            3333 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: February 5, 2009, 11:29 am - IP Logged

            I Agree! Alot of people here are buying the story at face value.  The kids are the only victims, and if she wanted to add to the story she could have bashed him on support when they wrote it.  i'll wait and see what the judge says on this one.   

            Agree with KY Floyd who has a keen legal mind but plays devil's advocate sometimes Wink  and FJA.  Depends on how evidence is weighed in court. 

            Good luck to everyone!

              truecritic's avatar - PirateTreasure
              Michigan
              United States
              Member #22395
              September 24, 2005
              1583 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: February 5, 2009, 2:13 pm - IP Logged

              Mad

              That is some cold S***!!!! If they end up in court the judge should rule that all of the money that is in question be put into a trust for the children to be divided equally between all of them when they turn 21, and neither of the parents can touch it!!! The judge should also rule that both parents should contribute a set amount apiece to the trust so that the kids will have something when they come of age. It's obvious that these parents are only good for bumping-ugly and reproducing. Argue

              Maybe old dude thought he could do like that black guy did who won on the lottery a few years ago and tried to pretend to be dead or something and ran out on his wife and she tracked him down and it was tied up in court. When I saw that on the news I laughed for days!!LOL

               

              Or the white woman who won and called herself divorcing her husband of 20 plus years then cashing in her winning lottery ticket, only to have the judge take all of her millions and give the whole thing to the ex-husband. That one was 100% pure poetic justice with a swiftness. 

              Party

               

              The true nature of a person comes out when they receive an amount of money that is larger than their paycheck. Go figure.

              If he pays child support and is in arrearage or if she receives government aid, child support will be deducted from the lottery win.

               

              For the kids???

              Otherwise there is no legal reason why the Judge would order the money to be put into a trust for the kids.  Kids are not entitled to live a rich life.  They can go to work like everyone else when they turn 18.

                ladyg's avatar - center
                New Member
                atlanta,ga
                United States
                Member #8881
                November 20, 2004
                5 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: February 5, 2009, 9:18 pm - IP Logged

                So sad, Money is the root of all evil. What's up with the brother that's an attorney? Is there such a thing of Oath? or Morally Wrong? Go figure?

                  chasingadream's avatar - Archangel 01.jpg

                  United States
                  Member #38687
                  May 3, 2006
                  315 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: February 6, 2009, 1:23 am - IP Logged

                  if you don't trust each other in a relationship then why would you trust the other with possible millions! what a goober ! 

                  Oogle  waiting patiently for my jackpot

                    OldSchoolPa's avatar - Lottery-057.jpg
                    Gurnee, Illinois
                    United States
                    Member #49731
                    February 12, 2007
                    917 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: February 6, 2009, 9:13 am - IP Logged

                    So sad, Money is the root of all evil. What's up with the brother that's an attorney? Is there such a thing of Oath? or Morally Wrong? Go figure?

                    Ladyg, you might want to pick up a Bible (or your Bible) and read it again because you are wrong about the saying, "Money is the root of all evil."  The Bible actually says, "The LOVE OF money is the root of all evil."  Money in and of itself is neither good or bad...it's how a person views it and due to that view (i.e. love it, like it, ect.) that will affect their subsequent behavior.  A person who LOVES money over people may have no problem stealing, killing, or prostituting themselves (and this applies to men as well as women so back off feminists) just to get it...and once they have it, they may spend it but they also will likely hoard it and have a higher than mighty attitude. 

                    Now I like money...money can allow me to do good things.  I'll work to earn it, but I'll also take a windfall anyday.  But I will always treat people as I would want to be treated.  I could never envision stealing or killing just to obtain money.

                    But back on point...there was nothing wrong with what his brother the attorney did in this case...he was being a brother and I know that if that was my brother and I, my brother would look out for my best interests just like his brother was doing for him.  If you have a problem with the fact that it was the man in this case who wanted to buy the ticket and not share with his girlfriend, what would you say if the script was flipped and it was the woman who had borrowed the money and bought the tickets and did not want to share the winnings with her boyfriend...I imagine you would say, "YOU GO GIRL...DO YOUR OWN THANG AND DROP THAT CHUMP!"  If a woman wins, it's perceived to be all her money; and if a guy wins, it's only half his money...that is just simply wrong.  If woman want equal pay for equal work, this is what I say:

                    1) In tennis, the women want equal prize money as the men...so that being the case, I think the women should be required to play best of 5 sets like the men instead of just 3.

                    2) In golf and basketball, the television and live draw would have to equal what the men produce in order to justify equal pay...let me tell you, Annika, Lorena, and Michelle Wie combined can't produce the draw that Tiger does on the PGA Tour (I for one know that I won't watch any non-major women's golf tournament, but I will watch ANY tournament that TW plays.).

                    3) In regular work, it's a given fact that when you take time off from your work that your earnings do not keep up with those who remain on the job working, and that applies to men as well as women.  I think the fact that women take more time off due to multiple pregnancies is what causes the pay differential.  But if pay is supposed to be based on one's performance ON THE JOB, I don't think women who don't do anything related to their work tasks while on maternity leave have a viable argument to have their pay continue to increase along with their colleagues who are actually picking up the slack and perhaps working longer hours just to cover for the absent mom.  Government employment is different from private sector employment...Govt. employment heavily factors in TIME in rank, time on the job whereas private sector heavily emphasizes PERFORMANCE.  So if a person is not present to perform even though their employment time ticker is still ticking, I don't think that person deserves a pay raise in the private sector.  So if anyone truly has a beef with this, maybe they need to pursue a job working for the federal or state government where pay is based on job grade level and time. 

                    Get MONEY!!! Winning a JACKPOT lottery is all the HOPE and CHANGE I desire!!!  NOW give me MONEY!US Flag

                    The guy who won the presidency in 2008 really won the lottery...he is now millions richer, travels in first class style, and even has a staff that would be the envy of the richest Powerball winner (she has a staff of 2). Every night he goes to sleep, he probably plays the close of Dave Chappelle's Show: I'm rich beyatch!

                      Avatar
                      metro Atlanta area
                      United States
                      Member #4122
                      March 23, 2004
                      49 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: February 6, 2009, 10:21 pm - IP Logged

                      OldSchoolPa:

                      "What would you say if the script was flipped and it was the woman who had borrowed the money and bought the tickets and did not want to share the winnings with her boyfriend...

                      I imagine you would say, "YOU GO GIRL...DO YOUR OWN THANG AND DROP THAT CHUMP!" 

                      If a woman wins, it's perceived to be all her money; and if a guy wins, it's only half his money...that is just simply wrong. "

                      =============

                      So true.  And my original point was that they are not married -- they do not even live together in spite of the children.  She has a house and he lives at the budget motel.  She apparently has a car and he does not -- it's not "their" car.  So, it's not "their" ticket.  It's HIS ticket. 

                      Now he will have to pay some more child support.  And the remainder of the money will go fast -- will disappear before he knows it --- and he will probably end up living at the motel again.  UNLESS he uses the money to go back to school and get a degree like his brother, the attorney.

                      That's the sad thing.  He now has in his hands the ability to change his life, but I bet he just spends it on cars or something and when it's all gone he will say life is unfair.

                      And if you have 3 kids by some guy, you better marry him.  No telling when he might get lucky in the lottery.  Wink  But that shouldn't be the reason.  You should marry him because it's the right thing to do.

                        Avatar
                        NY
                        United States
                        Member #23835
                        October 16, 2005
                        3471 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: February 7, 2009, 1:27 pm - IP Logged

                        Alright, it looks like a lot of people are reading into this story or misinterpreting what actually happened.  So let's break it down because aside from if this guy owes back child support (that is, presuming this woman has actually filed to receive it), that is the only thing that he would LEGALLY owe.

                        Saul was at Newsome's residence the week of Jan. 11, when he said he wanted to go the store, according to Newsome.

                        "The defendant asked the plaintiff for money, and the plaintiff provided $6 to the defendant. The defendant mentioned buying lottery tickets, and the plaintiff instructed the defendant to buy a two liter drink that the defendant wanted, and to buy Powerball lottery tickets with the remainder," the complaint says.

                         So looking at what was said and written, it was the GUY who wanted to go to the store in the first place and the only thing HE mentioned buying was LOTTERY TICKETS.  It was the PLANTIFF (WOMAN) who told the GUY to buy a two liter drink (man only people who want soda pop on the cheap would buy those two liter bottles...those things are terrible as you have to drink it all up soon after opening it or else it will go flat quick fast and in a hurry...uhg nasty!) first and, as if instructing a child, to buy the tickets with the remainder.  So to summarize, broke ass GUY wanted to buy lottery tickets; MOTHERLIKE PLANTIFF wanted to ensure that HE bought something tangible instead of just all Powerball tickets and gave HIM the money to buy those items.  I don't see her saying that SHE wanted HIM to buy HER some lottery tickets.  So the tickets are HIS bought with HER money (a non-implied loan or gift).

                        They couple later learned their ticket matched the first five numbers chosen in the lottery, but not the Powerball number, meaning they fell short of the main prize but won $200,000.

                        Now this appears to be HER point of view because the truth of the matter is whether HE shared with HER that it was a winning ticket, IT is actually HIS ticket...read on.

                        They first went to collect the money together in Knoxville, but were informed at the lottery office there that they would have to go to Nashville.

                        The next day, Jan 24, Newsome found that Saul had disappeared with the winning ticket, and she could not reach him on his cell phone.

                        She eventually learned that he had gone to the Nashville lottery office with his brother, who is an attorney, and claimed the proceeds.

                        So it looks like at first SHE wanted to accompany HIM to collect the winnings, but if SHE really was a lottery player (after all she had the home and he was staying in some low budget motel), she would have known by referencing the lottery website where THEY would have needed to go in order to collect the winnings.  I imagine that GUY just asked where the nearest lottery office and ALLOWED HER to accompany HIM there (seeing as how HE didn't have a license to drive...so that's makes sense.).

                        So after going to the wrong lottery office, GUY had a chance to talk to HIS brother (the attorney) who probably told HIM that he would be willing to take HIM to the Nashville office to collect the winnings...and perhaps that given the circumstances at how HE came to buy that ticket, that HIS girl might raise a stink and try to have her name included on the ticket and check.  So seeing how SMART GUY (I say Smart because HE apparently had enough sense to NOT marry ol' girl even though HE has plugged her up 3 times and to not answer HIS cellphone when ol' girl tried to call HIM as HE was enroute or already in Nashville getting that check minus the withheld taxes) wanted to maintain HIS self-preservation stance, HE took HIS Brother's offer of ride assistance.  SHE is pissed off that SHE couldn't run her game to get included on the check, or to watch over HIM as HE went down to the corner payday check cashing place to cash the check and to be able to then demand how ever much of it that she wanted.  To that I say this GUY was SMART for forseeing what would have happened in that instance.

                        If HE must pay child support, so be it.  Opening a college fund would be admirable, but doing so doesn't guarantee that those funds plus whatever capital gains, dividends and interest will be there when the children get to college age (presuming they just attend public school up until that time) as the custodian can raid the fund before that time.  Yes she could!  It happens all the time with people in the lower economic group that find themselves living paycheck to paycheck...so they think...hmmm, I got this money sitting over here for my kids...let me tap into that.

                        If anything, it would be good for the GUY to invest in himself to boost up HIS earning power and a prudent thing to do would be to also invest a small portion of those winnings and use some portion to find a better housing arrangement.  Don't know why ol' boy doesn't have his drivers license...could have never had one or more probable, ol' boy has a suspended license for whatever reason...DUI...no insurance...too many moving violations.

                        So you can see, the ticket possession issue is clear cut.  There are other things that are murky.  Ol' girl has no basis for this injunction, and I would expect it to be thrown out of court...of course, we never hear about how things of this nature are eventually resolved unless you live in the same area as the drama (like the Idaho $1M dollar ticket the customer didn't want, so was it the clerks or the stores...the Ohio Mega Millions group that tried to exclude 3 or 4 people who had contributed to the previous draw but were out of town but the winnings from that previous draw was used to purchase the numbers from which the winning ticket came!).

                        "Alright, it looks like a lot of people are reading into this story or misinterpreting what actually happened."

                        Yes, they are, and that's exactly what you do in most of the points you try to make.

                        "the only thing HE mentioned buying was LOTTERY TICKETS.  It was the PLANTIFF (WOMAN) who told the GUY to buy a two liter drink"

                        Acording to the plaintiff she told him to buy the drink "the defendant wanted." If that's the case the defendant obviously expressed his desire for said drink. In her version it's also significant that the money appears to have been provided before the defendant mentioned buying lottery tickets. There is nothing in the story to tell us his reason for wanting to go to the store, and there's nothing that tells us who first suggested buying lottery tickets. If you want to make assumptions, it's equally valid to assume that  his "mention" of lottery tickets, which came after being given the money, was to ask if he should pick up the tickets that she wanted.

                        "she empasized for him to buy the drinks first...and if there is anything left over you can buy the lottery tickets."

                        No, she allowed him to buy the drink, and required him to spend the rest on the tickets. Perhaps she knew that he otherwise would have spent it on beer or chewing tobacco.

                        "Now this appears to be HER point of view because the truth of the matter"

                        Of course it's her point of view. The article is about her legal actions, and her allegations supporting her claims. As for "the truth of the matter," the only factual information we can count on is that the defendant isthe one who took delivery of the tickets, one of which was a winner, and the woman has initiated legal action. None of us actually has aclue what either of them intended, or what really happened.

                        "It is up to him to do as he pleases with the proceeds."

                        Only if the money was a loan. Her version meets the requirements for a legal contract, wherein he bought the tickets on her behalf in exchange for the consideration of the drink.

                        "if SHE really was a lottery player she would have known byreferencing the lottery website where THEY would have needed to go inorder to collect the winnings."

                        Now you're just being stupid. Since they went together it seems clear that neither one of them knew that the prize couldn't be claimed at a regional office. The only thing that indicates is that neither one of them knew about the finer points of claiming large prizes. The only thing about going to the wrong office that might be relevant is that it may indicate an intent to claim the prize jointly.

                        "So you can see, the ticket possession issue is clear cut."

                        Nobody who actually understands what they've read can see that based on the story, assuming that by "possession" you actually mean ownership. If the truth comes out ownership may be clear, but as claimed by the plaintiff it's likely to be her ticket. Any interest that he has is limited to what she has given him.  It appears that she admits to giving him an interest, but if she can prove that he attempted to defraud her she may succeed in revoking his interest.

                        As I said in my previous post, I expect that she'll have difficulty proving her claim, but lack of proof doesn't  mean her version isn't the truth.  Unless there is some other evidence, this is just another typical "he said, she said" story, and those of us who weren't there have no way of knowing who deserves the prize.

                          Avatar

                          United States
                          Member #10720
                          January 23, 2005
                          933 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: February 8, 2009, 9:11 am - IP Logged

                          I'm not a lawyer, but I play Lottery... It is ambiguous as to who the lottery tickets were being purchased for. Defendant first mentioned buying lottery tickets. If he bought other items beside soda and tickets, then he was going there anyway (why? just for soda? why asked her for $?), even before she pitched in. The question would be did she mention Powerball or did he decide that when Plaintiff asked, and who she meant to buy them for, him, her, or both? Plaintiff did not say "for (herself)" other than the soda; only to buy some Powerball tickets with the extra $. We need clarification on what *exactly* he said about lottery tickets. He can easily claim that the tickets were interpreted as a gift to him and would not have bought them otherwise. He should have asked, who are these for,  what if it wins, even after bringing the tickets home. Right now he's legally entitled to keep the ticket because she can't prove what her intentions were or even exactly what she said initially, but he's morally obligated to share some but not all of it.

                          I don't know how someone lives in a motel. The cost per night seems like it would be higher than rent in a given area, no?

                          I assume these were QP which depends on very exact timing of pressing the button on the terminal at the exact time that set of # was whizzing through the computer that printed the tickets. Had anything been the slightest different there would probably be no winning ticket. Asking "...for me?" would have shifted the timing by a few seconds or more. I usually pick my own numbers with my own algorithms. If someone gives me $ to buy tickets I assume if it wins it's 100% theirs and up to them if they share.

                          If he was willing to give her up and the children for $200K, he could have just not mentioned having a winning ticket and then quietly disappeared.

                            rundown99's avatar - cigar

                            United States
                            Member #567
                            August 14, 2002
                            482 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: February 10, 2009, 12:30 pm - IP Logged

                            He should have played in a state where he could have remained anonymous.  This is just another reason why people should remain anonymous when it comes to buying lottery tickets.

                            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!

                              guesser's avatar - Lottery-017.jpg

                              United States
                              Member #41383
                              June 16, 2006
                              1969 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: February 19, 2009, 2:13 pm - IP Logged

                              "[The ticket is] a bare instrument. Anybody that finds it, it's theirs as long as there's no signature on it."

                               

                              I think she meant to say "The ticket is a bearer instrument",not a bare instrument.I surely wouldn't let anyone put their signature on my bare instrumentWink.

                              You noticed that too, eh ?