Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 10, 2016, 5:13 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Two workers in lottery pool sue over $118 million ticket

Topic closed. 82 replies. Last post 4 years ago by dommom.

Page 3 of 6
51
PrintE-mailLink
maringoman's avatar - images q=tbn:ANd9GcTbRxpKQmOfcCoUqF2FyqIOAwDo7rg9G-lfJLAALPGWJWwiz19eRw
Massachusetts
United States
Member #37433
April 14, 2006
2747 Posts
Offline
Posted: May 17, 2012, 3:57 pm - IP Logged

That jackpot was bought by a $9 that was won from a previous draw. Its not hard math.

The plaintiffs DO NOT deserve an equal share with the others because they only contributed

to the jp via a previous win of $9. But this is just me being rational. Their lawyers will argue that

absent a written agreement, the JP should be divided EQUALLY among all the members. Ouch! Double ouch!

    Wooddrive's avatar - Lottery-046.jpg
    Delco PA
    United States
    Member #80104
    September 16, 2009
    194 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: May 17, 2012, 6:01 pm - IP Logged

    People who are in charge of pools don't understand and outline the rules. people who play in pools don't understand the rules. I stopped contributing to pools at work because of this particular scenario and many, many others. I can see conflicts but some people are just blind or refuse to see the problem with inconsistent lottery pools.     besides, I may give but I'm not sharing.

      Avatar

      United States
      Member #113300
      July 6, 2011
      35 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: May 17, 2012, 7:26 pm - IP Logged

      Reality is... these JackPot winners SHOULD NOT be liable to split the jackpot with the other NON-participants. The Roll over money that existed should simply be paid out according to percentage of the Lottery Pool to the 2 "players" that were in the pool previously. So $9.00 divided by number of players for that draw is what SHOULD be paid out to those individuals who were NOT a part of the JackPot winning draw. 

      If these Lottery Players who DID NOT participate were so concerned about NOT being included, why didn't they say ANYTHING on Thursday when the ORIGINAL collections would take place on prior draws to those who were in charge of the Lottery Pool? Apparentley they had NO qualms about NOT putting money in when it WASN'T asked for on Thursday because it was apparently collected on Wednesday! Even though they MAY not have been informed of the unusual Wednesday collection. Reality is, the NON-participants may have possibly thought "ah, ill just skip this draw and keep my money in my pocket for now instead of participating in this drawing", thinking that they might just be throwing there money away for this upcoming drawing. 

      It's not like they were making waves for NOT being able to participate PRIOR to the FRIDAY Mega Millions draw. If anything, maybe the one buying the tickets bought them a day earlier possibly due to the Jackpot excitement of $118,000,000 or just NOT being able to purchase the tickets on Thursday because of other plans or a combination of both. Who Knows... 

      All I know, based on the common sense of Property Ownership, the 2 non-participants should receive their share of the $9.00 winnings and that's it! Simple as that. You don't participate, YOU DON'T WIN! 

      Lottery Pools should NOT be obigated to make sure everyone who were in previous draws are magically included in future draws based upon past participation. That's just not fair. What's fair is that all who ARE part of the pool and want to remain A PART of the pool, pony over the dough when required or in worst case scenario before the drawing occurs. 

      Crying about it AFTER the Jackpot was won, well, that's just greed on the non-participants part. 

      This is the same as if you played the same numbers every drawing for 10 years, but, failed to play them the night they actually were drawn. Should the lottery be responsible to pay out based upon previous participation with the winning numbers? Of course not, and so it is in this case that the jackpot should be paid to those WHO PARTICIPATED FOR THAT SPECIFIC DRAWING! SIMPLE!

       

      This is EXACTLY why I WANT NOTHING to do with Lottery Pools! Wink

        Avatar

        United States
        Member #124814
        March 20, 2012
        219 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: May 17, 2012, 8:16 pm - IP Logged

        They have legit claim to equal share. The $9 from the previous pool is their participation in the jackpot drawing. One could claim that had that $9 not existed, they would not have won it, especially since it was already established that the money won from the previous drawing would go towards the next. Sounds like a slam dunk case to me.

        I think they should get equal share.

          dallascowboyfan's avatar - tiana the-princess-and-the-frog.jpg
          Oklahoma
          United States
          Member #82391
          November 12, 2009
          6290 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: May 17, 2012, 9:42 pm - IP Logged

          Lurking

          I Love Pink & Green 1908

            rdgrnr's avatar - walt
            Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
            United States
            Member #73904
            April 28, 2009
            14903 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: May 17, 2012, 9:58 pm - IP Logged

            My favorite line from Skakespeare:

            "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers!"

            (From: Henry The Sixth)


                                                         
                                 
                                                     

             

             

             

             

                                                                                                               

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

                                                                                                        --Edmund Burke

             

             


              Bahamas
              Member #114685
              August 5, 2011
              422 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: May 17, 2012, 10:03 pm - IP Logged

              My favorite line from Skakespeare:

              "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers!"

              (From: Henry The Sixth)

              Wisdom survives the ages - lol!

              "Freedom of Speech? Keep reading and you will discover that freedom comes at a price!"

                Avatar

                United States
                Member #113300
                July 6, 2011
                35 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: May 17, 2012, 10:12 pm - IP Logged

                They have legit claim to equal share. The $9 from the previous pool is their participation in the jackpot drawing. One could claim that had that $9 not existed, they would not have won it, especially since it was already established that the money won from the previous drawing would go towards the next. Sounds like a slam dunk case to me.

                I think they should get equal share.

                Wow, equal share. They didn't even put in for this drawing, while others DID. So that means the others, according to your logic, should end up with equal share of the jackpot. A more equitable approach would be a percentage basis of the jackpot that those 2 who DID not pay into the winning jackpot drawing but from the $9 win plus whatever else was paid in additionally for the jackpot drawing. You would have to calculate what everyone put in, then come up with the figures if you use your logic. However...... The lottery pool didn't just take the whopping $9 win and use ONLY that.... no, they put other funds in that were NOT part of the previous $9 win. 

                In any case, if I'm hearing you correctly, let's say they give the non-participants their equal share of the $9 win prior, then that evens things up and the money spent on the winning tickets are then free and clear for the participants?

                In either case, the $9 should be distributed to the participants involved and the next drawing should be based on those who actually paid in wheather or not another $9 was used towards the drawing. All that matters is that the non-participants are made whole for the $9 win, NOT the jackpot. 

                The rightful property of the non-participants IS their equal share of the $9 win. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. That they are surely entitled to. Problem is, it won't cover lawyer fees to try and get the equal share of the jackpot. 

                I think this case WILL get ruled in favor of the Lottery pool and against the non-participants. IMO. BTW, it was an "Understanding", nothing in writing that future winnings go towards future draws.

                All we can do is what and see my friend.

                  tntea's avatar - Lottery-059.jpg

                  United States
                  Member #5344
                  June 30, 2004
                  23641 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: May 17, 2012, 10:22 pm - IP Logged

                  Heck,  why don't they just give the $9 to the two to split.  Heck, they won the jackpot, they can afford to give all the previous winnings to the two who didn't play in the last draw..No Pity!

                       OLD/Vtrac   Lottery Bible         Double Warnings      Thumbs Up TN F34/F44

                    Avatar

                    United States
                    Member #124814
                    March 20, 2012
                    219 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: May 18, 2012, 12:37 am - IP Logged

                    Wow, equal share. They didn't even put in for this drawing, while others DID. So that means the others, according to your logic, should end up with equal share of the jackpot. A more equitable approach would be a percentage basis of the jackpot that those 2 who DID not pay into the winning jackpot drawing but from the $9 win plus whatever else was paid in additionally for the jackpot drawing. You would have to calculate what everyone put in, then come up with the figures if you use your logic. However...... The lottery pool didn't just take the whopping $9 win and use ONLY that.... no, they put other funds in that were NOT part of the previous $9 win. 

                    In any case, if I'm hearing you correctly, let's say they give the non-participants their equal share of the $9 win prior, then that evens things up and the money spent on the winning tickets are then free and clear for the participants?

                    In either case, the $9 should be distributed to the participants involved and the next drawing should be based on those who actually paid in wheather or not another $9 was used towards the drawing. All that matters is that the non-participants are made whole for the $9 win, NOT the jackpot. 

                    The rightful property of the non-participants IS their equal share of the $9 win. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. That they are surely entitled to. Problem is, it won't cover lawyer fees to try and get the equal share of the jackpot. 

                    I think this case WILL get ruled in favor of the Lottery pool and against the non-participants. IMO. BTW, it was an "Understanding", nothing in writing that future winnings go towards future draws.

                    All we can do is what and see my friend.

                    They did put in for the drawing. The $9 was their particpation in the winning jackpot drawing. It bought them their ticket in. That $9 has equal weight to the new money the pool received for the new drawing. Why would it be on a percentage basis? They already had an understanding that the $9 won in the previous drawing would be used in the next. It's the same thing if they had given these guys their share of the $9, only for them to hand it right back and say "this is my buy-in into the next drawing".

                    Two things that make this a slam dunk case:

                    1. The $9 was used to purchase the winning ticket.
                    2. They had an understanding that the $9 won would go towards the next drawing.

                    That's equal share in my book.

                      Factorem's avatar - candle

                      United States
                      Member #117704
                      October 12, 2011
                      109 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: May 18, 2012, 1:24 am - IP Logged

                      Heck,  why don't they just give the $9 to the two to split.  Heck, they won the jackpot, they can afford to give all the previous winnings to the two who didn't play in the last draw..No Pity!

                      The $9 was used on behalf of the pool players that contributed money to purchase the tickets that won the prize of $9.

                      The $118m Jackpot was won with shares of money that belonged to the two plaintiffs. There was an existing authorization by the two plaintiffs, that saw their share in the $9, share in the pool of a larger fund, that won the $118m Jackpot. I believe that the two plaintiffs should at least, get a proportion in the Jackpot, that equals their share of money contribution, as already reflected in these posts by others.

                      Without considering any other factors that the Judge or Jury might be looking at, I believe that the following formula should be minimal enough to help determine the share of winnings for each player, and that is, assuming that the two plaintiffs will only be the plaintiffs in this matter before the lawsuit is over.

                      Each of the 11 players that contributed a dollar each has a total contribution of $1-9/13  or $22/13 or $1.692

                      Each of the 2 players that contributed ZERO dollar, each has a total contribution of $0-9/13 or $9/13 or $0.692

                      The 2 players contributed significantly less than 1/2(0.408) of what each of the other 11 players contributed.

                      The distribution of prize money will not be equal for the 11 and the 2 plaintiffs in the least. The plaintiffs may be allowed to receive the equivalent of 41% of what each of the other 11 players get, and again, that is of course if this case takes a simple linear path, which may be un-likely, as there could be any number of un-written practices between th eplayers that could be introduced, that could add to or reduce what the 2 plaintiffs may get.

                       

                        maximumfun's avatar - Lottery-030.jpg
                        Lavender Rocket

                        United States
                        Member #124616
                        March 16, 2012
                        2642 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: May 18, 2012, 1:27 am - IP Logged

                        My favorite line from Skakespeare:

                        "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers!"

                        (From: Henry The Sixth)

                        Great line.  Gotta love Shakespeare!  Shakespeare slammed lawyers in several lovely different ways in different penned pieces (he musta had his share of run-ins with them).

                        In "Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio uses the line "O'er lawyers' fingers, who straight dream on fees;"

                        In "King Lear", the fool defends a speech in riddles by comparing it to an "unfee'd lawyer".

                          Factorem's avatar - candle

                          United States
                          Member #117704
                          October 12, 2011
                          109 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: May 18, 2012, 1:56 am - IP Logged

                          They did put in for the drawing. The $9 was their particpation in the winning jackpot drawing. It bought them their ticket in. That $9 has equal weight to the new money the pool received for the new drawing. Why would it be on a percentage basis? They already had an understanding that the $9 won in the previous drawing would be used in the next. It's the same thing if they had given these guys their share of the $9, only for them to hand it right back and say "this is my buy-in into the next drawing".

                          Two things that make this a slam dunk case:

                          1. The $9 was used to purchase the winning ticket.
                          2. They had an understanding that the $9 won would go towards the next drawing.

                          That's equal share in my book.

                          In the past, lottery prizes for pool members have been split in proportion to the amount of money contributed by each pool member. So, a player that contributes $1.00 would get half the amount that a player that contribuited $2.00 gets. This traditional precedent is most likely to be played out again in this matter

                          The contributions of money to purchase the winning ticket were not equal, and therfore the sharing of prizes should not be equal.

                          What is accepted shared equal among all, is an intagible component of the event that caused the jackpot win, the matter of randomness, etc. This factor is not easily measurable and no monies, or weights of monies were assigned to any player in specifics. Therefore, this accepted equality plays no role in the dividing of the prize money. Only the measurable monies that were brought in by each player,  should be used to sort out the payouts to each player including the two who did not contribute additional dollars.

                           

                            OldSchoolPa's avatar - Lottery-057.jpg
                            Gurnee, Illinois
                            United States
                            Member #49731
                            February 12, 2007
                            917 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: May 18, 2012, 2:23 am - IP Logged

                            Pools are for fools.  What should be a time of total elation is instead a time of contention and strife.  I would rather have less of a chance of winning with my few buck per draw plays than to win any amount of prize with a pool of fools.

                            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
                              nanaimo,bc
                              Canada
                              Member #93110
                              June 21, 2010
                              26 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: May 18, 2012, 3:10 am - IP Logged

                              j.w.blue's answer is the right method to distribute the lottery funds this is the only way to have the funds divided up and makes lots of sense. well done jwblue