Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited April 11, 2021, 4:59 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Canada couple loses out on $1.64M jackpot

Jul 14, 2011, 11:35 am

Share this news story on Facebook
Tweet this news story on Twitter
Canada Super 7Canada Super 7: Canada couple loses out on $1.64M jackpot

Judge's ruling ends an Alberta couple's bid for a share of a 2007 Super 7 lottery jackpot

CALGARY — Relying on their friends to ensure they were covered for a lottery pool has cost an Alberta, Canada, couple $1.64 million, a judge has ruled.

In a written decision released Wednesday, Justice Suzanne Bensler said Michael and Catherine Clancy of Okotoks, Alta., weren't entitled to a percentage of a Nov. 23, 2007, $20 million jackpot.

"The plaintiffs' story is sad," Bensler said, in concluding the 21 people who did pay into the pool for the Super 7 draw were entitled to split the winnings.

"They have convinced me that they sincerely thought that their friends would ensure that they would be in the draw every time," the Court of Queen's Bench judge said.

"For their friends and acquaintances ... money became more important than friendship."

Bensler said even though the 21 participants who paid into the pool, run out of the Okotoks Elks Club, didn't earn the money, they were still entitled to the entire pot.

"One must be reminded that the defendants' wealth was acquired by luck, not by hard work," she said.

"This though does not give right to two or even one share of the lottery winnings."

While the Clancys regularly contributed when jackpots exceeded $10 million, they had stopped going to the club and weren't present when money was collected for the Nov. 23, 2007, draw.

Only one of the 21 winners, Albert Johnson, agreed they should be given a share of the cash.

Johnson had earlier settled with Clancys, agreeing to pay them $100,000 of his $952,000 cut of the winnings.

The couple's lawyer, Brian Clark, had argued a "core group" of players had entered into an agreement four years earlier to cover each other should one fail to pay.

But Bensler said what was discussed never amounted to a legal agreement on any of the participants.

"The plaintiffs have not convinced me that there was an acceptance from the members of the core group or that there was a legally binding agreement in place," she said.

The judge said even if there was a deal among the six members of the core group, including one man who no longer participated in the draws, it couldn't apply to all the players.

As a result of Bensler's ruling, pending an appeal each of the 21 winners will be given an additional $82,815.73, bringing their total prizes to $952,380.95.

Thanks to AJ for the tip.

Ottawa Sun

We'd love to see your comments here!  Register for a FREE membership — it takes just a few moments — and you'll be able to post comments here and on any of our forums. If you're already a member, you can Log In to post a comment.

31 comments. Last comment 10 years ago by haymaker.
Page 1 of 3
rdgrnr's avatar - walt
100
Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
United States
Member #73902
April 28, 2009
14903 Posts
Offline

They had stopped going to the club and still expected somebody to cover for them in the pool?

Nah, I don't think so.

They didn't deserve a nickel in my opinion. They're very lucky that one guy gave them 100 grand cuz they definitely didn't deserve it.

Just another example of why I don't like pools; I wonder how much the lawyers grabbed on this deal?


                                             
                     
                                         

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                   

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                            --Edmund Burke

 

 

    B$Rizzle's avatar - a4leds
    The Ville, FL
    United States
    Member #95875
    August 19, 2010
    1708 Posts
    Offline

    They had stopped going to the club and still expected somebody to cover for them in the pool?

    Nah, I don't think so.

    They didn't deserve a nickel in my opinion. They're very lucky that one guy gave them 100 grand cuz they definitely didn't deserve it.

    Just another example of why I don't like pools; I wonder how much the lawyers grabbed on this deal?

    I AGREE...Bottom line, if you pay to play, then you get a share if the pool wins. If you miss a couple draws, then you are OUT for those draws.

     

    I'm sorry but when I was running a pool I told everyone "I will not spot you for the draw, if you want to participate I need the $$ by this date/time"

     

    If they wanted to participat that bad, they should have made a special trip to the person collenting the money to drop off cash. I had people do this on several occasions. I even allowed some of them to paypal me the $$ since they were out of town, but at least they paid.

    I don't think these people deserve any of it.

     

    It would be different if it was a long time pool player that participated EVERY week, and then that player had a terrible accident and ended up in the hospital and thats why they couldnt play. But, in this situation thats not the case.

     

    Judge B$Rizzle says "Case closed, you dont get chit"

      RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
      100
      mid-Ohio
      United States
      Member #9
      March 24, 2001
      20272 Posts
      Offline

      If Michael and Catherine Clancy had continued to reimburse their friends as they continue to play the lottery and won nothing then they might have had a case.  How anyone could think their friends would ensure that they would be in the pool every time without any expectations of reimbursements is beyond me.  Their story is not sad but stupid and stupid doesn't pay.

       * you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones * 

      Thumbs Up       

        sully16's avatar - sharan
        25
        Dr.President Elect
        Michigan
        United States
        Member #81738
        October 28, 2009
        83636 Posts
        Offline

        No pay , no win.

        See Ya!

          dallascowboyfan's avatar - chi
          Oklahoma
          United States
          Member #82389
          November 12, 2009
          6371 Posts
          Offline

          They had stopped going to the club and still expected somebody to cover for them in the pool?

          Nah, I don't think so.

          They didn't deserve a nickel in my opinion. They're very lucky that one guy gave them 100 grand cuz they definitely didn't deserve it.

          Just another example of why I don't like pools; I wonder how much the lawyers grabbed on this deal?

          I Agree!


            United States
            Member #108375
            March 25, 2011
            505 Posts
            Offline

            this never should have seen a courtroom. they are being unfair to the people who paid by contesting this. stay out of pools. this happens too often when the group takes one down. which isn't often but there always seems to be a problem when a group hits.


              United States
              Member #75356
              June 1, 2009
              5345 Posts
              Offline

              I've seen enough episodes of People's Court, Judge Judy and others to know better...Written agreement...PERIOD !

                maringoman's avatar - images q=tbn:ANd9GcTbRxpKQmOfcCoUqF2FyqIOAwDo7rg9G-lfJLAALPGWJWwiz19eRw
                Massachusetts
                United States
                Member #37432
                April 14, 2006
                2747 Posts
                Offline

                I agree with the judge and the members of this forum. Justice was served.

                It makes me upset that the winning group had to incur attorney fees defending

                 what was clearly their money. This case should have been thrown out at hearing!

                That money's gone fo ever

                  RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                  100
                  mid-Ohio
                  United States
                  Member #9
                  March 24, 2001
                  20272 Posts
                  Offline

                  I've seen enough episodes of People's Court, Judge Judy and others to know better...Written agreement...PERIOD !

                  I doubt if their friends would have signed an agreement like the one they thought they had, that is split their future lottery winnings with them even though they contribute nothing to the cost of tickets.

                   * you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones * 

                  Thumbs Up       

                    haymaker's avatar - Lottery-012.jpg
                    Egg Harbor twp.south Jersey shore
                    United States
                    Member #112963
                    June 29, 2011
                    4136 Posts
                    Offline

                    agree w/ the judge's dicision, but don't like her attitude,she said the 21 participants did't earn the money,well maybe they did't use hammers, shovels & trucks,but they used their $ earned somehow and risked them on this game, the plantiff did not.i went fishing on party boat today where everyone on board has the option of joining the betting pool, $5 ea. the guy next to me declined,he caught the biggest doormat ,the angler w/ 2nd biggest flattie won the pool.

                    Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds    -- Charles Mackay  LL.D.

                      larry3100's avatar - larry icon2.jpg
                      Redwood City,California
                      United States
                      Member #70501
                      February 3, 2009
                      211 Posts
                      Offline

                      Right on Ridge. I hear about it on occasion "I was in that lottery pool too!" You don't pay,you don't play!.I Agree!

                        Avatar

                        United States
                        Member #111181
                        May 20, 2011
                        344 Posts
                        Offline

                        Wow - More nutty plaintiffs!

                        A never ending stream of entertainment. LOL

                          ttech10's avatar - blobdude
                          Texas
                          United States
                          Member #92326
                          June 5, 2010
                          887 Posts
                          Offline

                          They had stopped going to the club and still expected somebody to cover for them in the pool?

                          Nah, I don't think so.

                          They didn't deserve a nickel in my opinion. They're very lucky that one guy gave them 100 grand cuz they definitely didn't deserve it.

                          Just another example of why I don't like pools; I wonder how much the lawyers grabbed on this deal?

                          I had missed that line where they stopped going, and so before reading this I was feeling bad for them.

                          But, since it doesn't look like it was that they simply missed putting in their money for one draw (which I assumed), I don't really feel sorry for them not getting a share of the winnings. Seriously, if you leave a pool/club and then expect to be brought back in for that one draw that won, you need to get a slapping to bring you back to reality.

                            KY Floyd's avatar - lysol avatar.jpg
                            NY
                            United States
                            Member #23834
                            October 16, 2005
                            4363 Posts
                            Offline

                            I doubt if their friends would have signed an agreement like the one they thought they had, that is split their future lottery winnings with them even though they contribute nothing to the cost of tickets.

                            Did we read the same article? Here's what it said in the one I read:

                            "While the Clancys regularly contributed when jackpots exceeded $10 million, they had stopped going to the club and weren't present when money was collected for the Nov. 23, 2007, draw."

                            They were contributing to the cost of tickets, but didn't pay ahead of time for that particular drawing.  If they weren't there when money was collected for previous drawings but contibuted their share for (losing)  tickets after the fact I would see that as an implicit agreement with the others. Unfortunately the article says nothing about what happened for any other drawings, so I don't know whether they previously paid before the drawings even if they weren't at the club, or if the group accepted payment after the fact.  As always, pools should have a written contract that unambiguously spells out the requirements.