Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 10, 2016, 9:32 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

California family's fight over $51 million lottery jackpot is over

Topic closed. 49 replies. Last post 4 years ago by jamella724.

Page 3 of 4
52
PrintE-mailLink
dallascowboyfan's avatar - tiana the-princess-and-the-frog.jpg
Oklahoma
United States
Member #82391
November 12, 2009
6290 Posts
Offline
Posted: March 28, 2013, 1:55 pm - IP Logged

I got the quote form the story you posted.

http://www.lotterypost.com/news/245837 

In the 11th paragraph.

Ok, so why did she have the ticketWhat? this makes no sense im so confusedBang Head

"She later checked her Mega Millions ticket against the numbers in a newspaper, and saw she had won, the lawsuit said. Urquhart and her husband, Orender's stepfather, later went with Orender to the Mobil station where they met with lottery officials."

I Love Pink & Green 1908

    helpmewin's avatar - dandy
    u$a
    United States
    Member #106665
    February 22, 2011
    19908 Posts
    Online
    Posted: March 28, 2013, 1:58 pm - IP Logged

    Ok, so why did she have the ticketWhat? this makes no sense im so confusedBang Head

    "She later checked her Mega Millions ticket against the numbers in a newspaper, and saw she had won, the lawsuit said. Urquhart and her husband, Orender's stepfather, later went with Orender to the Mobil station where they met with lottery officials."

    I Agree! very confusing

    Let it Snow Snowman

      HaveABall's avatar - rocket

      United States
      Member #72448
      March 18, 2009
      1228 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: March 28, 2013, 2:51 pm - IP Logged

      If one goes to the MegaMillions website, they'll see a picture of Ronnie Orender, his wife, his mother, and his stepfather.  If one looks on their table, there is a huge MM promotional check lying flat ... the only name on this $51M check is "Ronnie Orender."

      If days earlier, at the Mobile Gas Station, an official California Lottery Headquarters representative indicated to 74 year old Etta May Orender [who may just live another 20 years] that she should print and sign her name on the back of the ticket ... that was advice.  The MM isn't responsible for if Etta May decided not to wait until a later time to do such with a steady hand, or if she quickly urged a son raised to be selfish by telling him to "Sign it."  Ronnie may be a sociopath not able to jump to positing the unique question towards that nearby lottery official or without first asking his mother "Sign as my name?", or "How do I sign on behalf of your [mother's] name?"!

      Possibly, Etta May caused a waste of monies towards both side's lawyer's fees.  The situation is that Ronnie Orender ALREADY paid full Income Taxes on the lump sum! 

      We'll never know the truth concerning either of these two lucky liers/sociopaths/whatevers.

      Scared

      Having several millions of dollars in my financial accounts means receiving several valuable services each day!

      Disney

        noise-gate's avatar - images q=tbn:ANd9GcR91HDs4UJhjxO7cmeMQWZ5lB_FOcMLOGicau4V74R45tDgPWrr
        Bay Area - California
        United States
        Member #136477
        December 12, 2012
        4110 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: March 28, 2013, 3:31 pm - IP Logged

        If one goes to the MegaMillions website, they'll see a picture of Ronnie Orender, his wife, his mother, and his stepfather.  If one looks on their table, there is a huge MM promotional check lying flat ... the only name on this $51M check is "Ronnie Orender."

        If days earlier, at the Mobile Gas Station, an official California Lottery Headquarters representative indicated to 74 year old Etta May Orender [who may just live another 20 years] that she should print and sign her name on the back of the ticket ... that was advice.  The MM isn't responsible for if Etta May decided not to wait until a later time to do such with a steady hand, or if she quickly urged a son raised to be selfish by telling him to "Sign it."  Ronnie may be a sociopath not able to jump to positing the unique question towards that nearby lottery official or without first asking his mother "Sign as my name?", or "How do I sign on behalf of your [mother's] name?"!

        Possibly, Etta May caused a waste of monies towards both side's lawyer's fees.  The situation is that Ronnie Orender ALREADY paid full Income Taxes on the lump sum! 

        We'll never know the truth concerning either of these two lucky liers/sociopaths/whatevers.

        Scared

        Of course he paid " full tax" as you put it because there is no way to avoid not paying tax- he could not pull a Wesley Snipes.Fact of the matter is it was not HIS MONEY to begin with. She won , not him, she went into the convenient store to purchase the ticket,  not him.Just because she was shaking uncontrollably to sign the ticket does not mean ownership is transferred over to the Son.Sure his name is on the placard on the table why?- because he signed it. But theft is theft, a so called" white lie" is still a lie.If the agreement was that you sign " and make sure you take care of us"- then it was his DUTY to follow through on that.He ended up in court because he did not honor the " agreement", that is why there was a settlement.  If he was so right- why not fight it in court because he knows he wil lose,  there are a lot of elderly  people who play the lottery, if that jury was comprised of 8 elderly persons...GAME OVER.

        * One does not get into a cage match with the elderly over money in California, his attorney was smart enough to tell him so.

          Avatar
          London
          United Kingdom
          Member #140684
          March 24, 2013
          566 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: March 28, 2013, 4:05 pm - IP Logged

          Crazy what money does.

          2016 Won/Lost

          EuroMillions / Spent: £22 / Won £0 / Total -£22

          UK Lotto / Spent: £4 / Won: £0 / Total: -£4

          2016 Total: -£24

          Jan: -£22 Feb: £0 ~ Mar: £0 ~ April: £0 ~ May: £0 ~ June: £0 ~ July: £2

           

          EuroMillions = £2 Line / Played: x11 [old price] 

          EuroMillions = £2.50 Line / Played: x0

          UK Lotto = £2 Line / Played x2

            Avatar
            Kentucky
            United States
            Member #32652
            February 14, 2006
            7322 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: March 28, 2013, 5:00 pm - IP Logged

            I Agree! very confusing

            I Agree!

            "Urquhart and her husband, Orender's stepfather, later went with Orender to the Mobil station where they met with lottery officials"

            AND

            "It was actually Orender's mother, Etta Urquhart, who took his $2 and bought two Mega Millions tickets at Stuarts Oak Street Mobil in Bakersfield.."

            So the mom buys tickets for her son with or without a verbal agreement, the ticket wins, and her and the stepfather go with the son to validate the ticket. But only the son signed the ticket and the check was issued to him. If the ticket really belonged to the mom or there was some kind of arrangement made, why wasn't it made known when they validated the ticket? 

            How can she prove in court is was her ticket when she said she "took his $2" to buy the ticket and was present throughout the validation process?

              Avatar
              Kentucky
              United States
              Member #32652
              February 14, 2006
              7322 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: March 28, 2013, 5:09 pm - IP Logged

              Of course he paid " full tax" as you put it because there is no way to avoid not paying tax- he could not pull a Wesley Snipes.Fact of the matter is it was not HIS MONEY to begin with. She won , not him, she went into the convenient store to purchase the ticket,  not him.Just because she was shaking uncontrollably to sign the ticket does not mean ownership is transferred over to the Son.Sure his name is on the placard on the table why?- because he signed it. But theft is theft, a so called" white lie" is still a lie.If the agreement was that you sign " and make sure you take care of us"- then it was his DUTY to follow through on that.He ended up in court because he did not honor the " agreement", that is why there was a settlement.  If he was so right- why not fight it in court because he knows he wil lose,  there are a lot of elderly  people who play the lottery, if that jury was comprised of 8 elderly persons...GAME OVER.

              * One does not get into a cage match with the elderly over money in California, his attorney was smart enough to tell him so.

              "she went into the convenient store to purchase the ticket,  not him."

              Last Saturday my sister-in-law asked me to buy her 10 PB tickets and gave me $20. Does that mean even though I bought the tickets for her with her money, the tickets are actually mine?

              "One does not get into a cage match with the elderly over money in California, his attorney was smart enough to tell him so."

              How do you know it wasn't her lawyer that suggested talking a settlement?

                noise-gate's avatar - images q=tbn:ANd9GcR91HDs4UJhjxO7cmeMQWZ5lB_FOcMLOGicau4V74R45tDgPWrr
                Bay Area - California
                United States
                Member #136477
                December 12, 2012
                4110 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: March 28, 2013, 7:10 pm - IP Logged

                Stack47- you comparing apples & oranges. The Mother asked the Son for $2.00, the moment he handed that money over, it became hers, what she did with it from that point on is her business.For instance if she smoked cigarettes and he did not, and she bought cigarettes,  can it be said its his cigarettes?-no because he handed the money over and she used it as she saw fit.If the tickets she bought were losing tickets would he be making an issue ?- no, why, because it was her decision to play or not, the case could be made for a burger or burrito. Your point is moot.
                Now had your sister in law given you money to buy tickets FOR HER and they proved to be a winner in amongst them- its hers because she " instructed you to buy them"- you have zero claim to her winnings unless she decides to give you something.


                  United States
                  Member #116268
                  September 7, 2011
                  20244 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: March 28, 2013, 7:20 pm - IP Logged

                  Stack47- you comparing apples & oranges. The Mother asked the Son for $2.00, the moment he handed that money over, it became hers, what she did with it from that point on is her business.For instance if she smoked cigarettes and he did not, and she bought cigarettes,  can it be said its his cigarettes?-no because he handed the money over and she used it as she saw fit.If the tickets she bought were losing tickets would he be making an issue ?- no, why, because it was her decision to play or not, the case could be made for a burger or burrito. Your point is moot.
                  Now had your sister in law given you money to buy tickets FOR HER and they proved to be a winner in amongst them- its hers because she " instructed you to buy them"- you have zero claim to her winnings unless she decides to give you something.

                  I see it the same way Stack is seeing it. Mom frequently went to buy tickets and the son said.....

                  "Mom here is two dollars, please get me two MM tickets"

                  The winning ticket was his. 

                  She gave it to him.

                  MM paid him.

                    noise-gate's avatar - images q=tbn:ANd9GcR91HDs4UJhjxO7cmeMQWZ5lB_FOcMLOGicau4V74R45tDgPWrr
                    Bay Area - California
                    United States
                    Member #136477
                    December 12, 2012
                    4110 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: March 28, 2013, 7:34 pm - IP Logged

                    I see it the same way Stack is seeing it. Mom frequently went to buy tickets and the son said.....

                    "Mom here is two dollars, please get me two MM tickets"

                    The winning ticket was his. 

                    She gave it to him.

                    MM paid him.

                    Why would the Mother fight the Son IF in fact the Son was the lawful owner of the ticket? She could have simply congratulated him on his win..end of story- but the son was playing fast & loose hoping that his Mom & Stepdad would keel over..well surprise,  those elderly people fought back...and won. You can agree with Stack all you want, it does not make it true.
                    By the way-What do you have against old people?

                      sully16's avatar - sharan
                      Ringleader
                      Michigan
                      United States
                      Member #81740
                      October 28, 2009
                      40609 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: March 28, 2013, 8:02 pm - IP Logged

                      What on earth would you need 10 cars forWhat?. Glad Miss Etta May is getting some of the money which she should have been getting from day one any way. Shame on the son for doing his mother like thatNo No.

                      I agree, hope she can relax and enjoy life for awhile

                      Did you exchange a walk on part in the war ?

                      For a lead role in a cage?

                       

                                                                  From Pink Floyd's " Wish you were here"

                        sully16's avatar - sharan
                        Ringleader
                        Michigan
                        United States
                        Member #81740
                        October 28, 2009
                        40609 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: March 28, 2013, 8:02 pm - IP Logged

                        Crazy what money does.

                        Well said, makes people crazy.

                        Did you exchange a walk on part in the war ?

                        For a lead role in a cage?

                         

                                                                    From Pink Floyd's " Wish you were here"

                          larry3100's avatar - larry icon2.jpg
                          Redwood City,California
                          United States
                          Member #70503
                          February 3, 2009
                          200 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: March 28, 2013, 10:53 pm - IP Logged

                          There is an old saying " If you have a job to do,you have to do it yourself " If Etta had just taken a moment of her time and signed that freaking lotto ticket,all this shi* going to court wouldn't have taken place.

                            Avatar
                            Kentucky
                            United States
                            Member #32652
                            February 14, 2006
                            7322 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: March 28, 2013, 11:40 pm - IP Logged

                            Stack47- you comparing apples & oranges. The Mother asked the Son for $2.00, the moment he handed that money over, it became hers, what she did with it from that point on is her business.For instance if she smoked cigarettes and he did not, and she bought cigarettes,  can it be said its his cigarettes?-no because he handed the money over and she used it as she saw fit.If the tickets she bought were losing tickets would he be making an issue ?- no, why, because it was her decision to play or not, the case could be made for a burger or burrito. Your point is moot.
                            Now had your sister in law given you money to buy tickets FOR HER and they proved to be a winner in amongst them- its hers because she " instructed you to buy them"- you have zero claim to her winnings unless she decides to give you something.

                            "The Mother asked the Son for $2.00, the moment he handed that money over, it became hers"

                            Then why didn't Mom or her husband sign the back of the ticket if it was hers?

                            "Now had your sister in law given you money to buy tickets FOR HER and they proved to be a winner in amongst them- its hers because she " instructed you to buy them"

                            That's exactly what I said happened.

                            "you have zero claim to her winnings unless she decides to give you something."

                            And Mom told the MM officials she bought the ticket for her son so why is she entitled to the winning, but I have zero claim for doing exactly the same thing?

                            I don't know if her son conned his mother into letting him sign the ticket and into saying she used his money to buy the tickets for him or not, but the facts show the son signed ticket, the check was issued to him, and the MM officials verified she said she bought the ticket for him. I believe she got mad when she found out her son spent $3.2 million on cars and houses and found a lawyer who would gladly accept a few thousand up front to file suit. Had the lawyer won the suit, he probably would get 10% or $3.2 million.

                            Apparently part of the settlement agreement is that neither side will discuss the details so we'll probably never know what it was. She may believe it was her money and her son was only managing it, but when he signed the ticket and she confirmed she bought the ticket with his money for him, the money is legally his. The reached a settlement; case closed.

                              noise-gate's avatar - images q=tbn:ANd9GcR91HDs4UJhjxO7cmeMQWZ5lB_FOcMLOGicau4V74R45tDgPWrr
                              Bay Area - California
                              United States
                              Member #136477
                              December 12, 2012
                              4110 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: March 29, 2013, 12:44 am - IP Logged

                              Stacks47..

                              The Mother asked the Son for $2.00, the moment he handed that money over, it became hers"

                              Then why didn't Mom or her husband sign the back of the ticket if it was hers?

                              Answer: If you read the news report " She was shaking uncontrollably- she ASKED her son to sign for her and he SIGNED HIS OWN NAME..that is why.

                               

                              "Now had your sister in law given you money to buy tickets FOR HER and they proved to be a winner in amongst them- its hers because she " instructed you to buy them"

                              That's exactly what I said happened.

                              Perhaps, but  your point was about ownership of the ticket, you seemed to make it clear that since she got $2.00 from her son that her purchasing the ticket with that money somehow became his ticket, besides Ronnie agrees with you and not me. How is it possible for that to be, him agreeing with you and not me and you agreeing with me? 

                              And Mom told the MM officials she bought the ticket for her son so why is she entitled to the winning, but I have zero claim for doing exactly the same thing?

                              Answer: If you read the news report: The Son TOLD the mother to tell friends that she bought the ticket for her son to deflect pressure from herself- that of course was not true- she went along with her son's suggestion despite it being a lie. Next you know, his buying houses and cars. She was conned by her boy.