Woman sues business partner for share of $12.6M lottery jackpot

Jun 6, 2012, 8:00 am (36 comments)

Canada 6/49

A lawsuit launched by a New Westminster, British Columbia, woman who claims she was tricked out of her equal share of a $12.6 million lottery jackpot is going to a full trial.

A B.C. Supreme Court judge has ruled that the legal action filed by Maria Ganguin over the winning Canada Lotto 6/49 ticket against her ex-business partner, Maria Fehr, and her husband, Daniel Fehr, should be settled with full testimony before a trial judge.

The defendants sought to have the matter resolved in a summary trial where the ruling would be based primarily on affidavits.

The plaintiff sought a full trial, in which the Fehrs' credibility could be tested under cross-examination. The B.C. Lottery Corporation is also a defendant in the legal action.

Ganguin and Maria Fehr previously ran a catering business together and had agreed that each could regularly use money from their business to purchase lottery tickets.

They agreed to equally divide any prize money.

Maria Fehr claimed that the $20 she used in November 2008 to buy the winning lottery ticket came from her husband, not from a cash box in one of the two delivery trucks she owned with Ganguin.

After the jackpot was announced, Ganguin signed a waiver for the B.C. Lottery Corporation in which she accepted that the winning ticket was not purchased through their business.

Ganguin alleged that Maria Fehr initially told her that Daniel Fehr had bought the winning ticket.

She became suspicious later when she read in a newspaper article that Maria Fehr had purchased the ticket while on her coffee truck route and that her business partner was the first name on the check issued by the BCLC.

After consulting a lawyer, Ganguin proceeded with the lawsuit.

Justice Trevor Armstrong, in his ruling last week, said there is no independent evidence showing whether the fateful ticket was bought with money from the cash box or from Daniel Fehr.

In the absence of such evidence, said Armstrong, the plaintiff's only hope is for a trial judge to disbelieve the defendant's evidence after hearing cross-examination of both parties.

"Although Ms. Ganguin may have a steep uphill struggle to shake Ms. Fehr's credibility," wrote Justice Armstrong, "it is my view it would be unjust to deprive Ms. Ganguin of a full trial."

Thanks to w794728 for the tip.

Vancouver Sun

Comments

Cletu$2's avatarCletu$2

Here we go again,someone is sueing someone else for a share of the lottery winnings and the attorneys will make out like bandits.

maximumfun's avatarmaximumfun

If she signed the waiver because she was told that the ticket was purchased by the husband (dh - darling husband), it shows that she was willing to believe that she had no part... it sounds like she only changed her mind once the story changed to being her BUSINESS partner (with whom she did have a lottery pooling agreement - using 'common money' from their joint business) having purchased the ticket and HER name somehow being on the winning check...

Sounds like it could be an interesting trial.

hearsetrax's avatarhearsetrax

Crazy

mcginnin56

I believe that suing is one of America's favorite past times. When all else fails, start suing anyone and everyone!  Hyper    Smash       Argue

DC81's avatarDC81

Quote: Originally posted by mcginnin56 on Jun 6, 2012

I believe that suing is one of America's favorite past times. When all else fails, start suing anyone and everyone!  Hyper    Smash       Argue

This is in Canada.

mcginnin56

Quote: Originally posted by DC81 on Jun 6, 2012

This is in Canada.

Sorry DC81. Suing is one of Canada's favorite past times.

RJOh's avatarRJOh

When players make kind of a general agreements about buying lottery tickets those kinds of a general agreements don't usually work when one of them wins because every one have their own interpretations of the agreement.

rdgrnr's avatarrdgrnr

It's hard for liars to keep their lies straight sometimes.

If she told her partner that her husband bought it then she shouldn't have told everyone else that she bought it while driving the company vehicle.

I think that's gonna prove to be a 6 million dollar mistake.

CARBOB

Quote: Originally posted by rdgrnr on Jun 6, 2012

It's hard for liars to keep their lies straight sometimes.

If she told her partner that her husband bought it then she shouldn't have told everyone else that she bought it while driving the company vehicle.

I think that's gonna prove to be a 6 million dollar mistake.

I agree, especially, if it's being reported in the newspaper!!

dallascowboyfan's avatardallascowboyfan

Quote: Originally posted by rdgrnr on Jun 6, 2012

It's hard for liars to keep their lies straight sometimes.

If she told her partner that her husband bought it then she shouldn't have told everyone else that she bought it while driving the company vehicle.

I think that's gonna prove to be a 6 million dollar mistake.

Thumbs Up

KY Floyd's avatarKY Floyd

"had agreed that each could regularly use money from their business to purchase lottery tickets."

I sure hope it was a bit more specific than that. As written, it makes the typical office pool with only a verbal agreement  and a rotating  group of members look like a well thought out plan by a genius.

LottoGuyBC's avatarLottoGuyBC

"Say NO to office pools " Cheers

RedStang's avatarRedStang

Quote: Originally posted by LottoGuyBC on Jun 6, 2012

"Say NO to office pools " Cheers

Too late. Already involved in a 5$ pool with players from four different countries who still think a wheelbarrel is two buckets hanging on a stick. Our win tonight will make story of the year.

LottoGuyBC's avatarLottoGuyBC

Quote: Originally posted by RedStang on Jun 6, 2012

Too late. Already involved in a 5$ pool with players from four different countries who still think a wheelbarrel is two buckets hanging on a stick. Our win tonight will make story of the year.

still think a wheelbarrel is two buckets hanging on a stick

Thud

Subscribe to this news story