Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 7, 2016, 1:12 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Friends sue NJ Lottery, saying they're owed $1 million for discarded ticket

Topic closed. 53 replies. Last post 2 years ago by Stack47.

Page 4 of 4
52
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7310 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 30, 2014, 4:41 pm - IP Logged

Isn't it kinda late even if they could prove it was their ticket?  It's over a year later. I thought you had 6 months to claim?

Besides, it was their own fault.  They admitted they were careless by not checking the date of the posted results.  It's not as if the website posted incorrect information.

When the two men went to the commission earlier this year with their claim they were told they were out of luck, their attorney says. "They were told that without the ticket they were not going to pay," said attorney Edward Logan.

From that I assumed they did make a claim without a ticket within the correct time. Their reason for not having the ticket is probably irrelevant in any court, but their case will involve trying to prove the unclaimed winning ticket was theirs. The story doesn't say if unclaimed ticket was sold in the store where they purchased their tickets and from all we know, there might not be an unclaimed $1 million ticket.

    Avatar
    Kentucky
    United States
    Member #32652
    February 14, 2006
    7310 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: June 30, 2014, 5:05 pm - IP Logged

    I think you're all missing the real point. It doesn't matter if they bought the winning ticket. The rules on every single website states that they have to present the ticket, signed, with the appropriate ID. The lawyer threw the red herring of them being able to prove they bought the winning ticket to distract from the real issue, which is, without the ticket you don't get paid. The lawsuit is nothing but a smoke screen being used to get around the rules. The fact that they were dumb enough not to check the date is just cherry on the sundae.

    If I bought the winning Euromillions ticket, I couldn't sue them when they deny my claim because the rules state I have to be a resident of a specific country in order to collect. If I wasn't going to abide by their terms I should not have played. MM has its own rules. These two idiots don't get to circumvent the rules on the excuse that they're morons.

    "It doesn't matter if they bought the winning ticket. The rules on every single website states that they have to present the ticket, signed, with the appropriate ID."

    And examples were shown where players were paid without the winning ticket.

    "The lawsuit is nothing but a smoke screen being used to get around the rules."

    Their lawyer will show where lotteries made exceptions to the rules and why I said they have the "beginnings of a case". The N.J. Lottery knows if a winning $1 million PB ticket was sold at the Mahwah 7-11 and know if it was claimed. You're correct, they were very stupid for losing the ticket without double checking the results, but if it really was the winning ticket and nobody else made a claim, why should the lottery keep the winning?

      Avatar
      NY
      United States
      Member #23835
      October 16, 2005
      3474 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: July 1, 2014, 1:29 am - IP Logged

      "Except we have precedent where a winner was able to collect despite no longer having the winning ticket"

      Is there a precedent in NJ? Each state gets to set their own rules for many aspects of multi-state games, without the consent of other states. That other states may bend their particular rules is irrelevant to NJ's choice to enforce theirs. I don't know about other states, but NY specifically allows people to claim without a ticket. In the case of Willis Willis mentioned earlier, the ticket was presented.

      "The story doesn't say if unclaimed ticket was sold in the store where they purchased their tickets and from all we know, there might not be an unclaimed $1 million ticket."

      It may not specifically say that, but it seems pretty clear. They regularly bought tickets at that store, and the lawyer is referring to the serial numbers of tickets 1 & 3. It's also a pretty safe bet that there is an unclaimed winner. If there wasn't I'm fairly sure the lottery would have thought that was a much better reason to deny payment than the claimants' failure to present a ticket.

        Avatar
        New York, NY
        United States
        Member #13514
        April 7, 2005
        235 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: July 1, 2014, 3:35 pm - IP Logged

        He threw out the ticket oh well.  That's not the fault of New Jersey.  Hold your tickets until you are 100% certain you did not win some kind of prize!!!

          miracleplay5's avatar - web
          Orange County, Florida
          United States
          Member #117114
          September 27, 2011
          995 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: July 1, 2014, 5:47 pm - IP Logged

          Well I was laughing in the beginning but as I got towards the end I can see how they have a pretty good case...to blame the website/state of New Jersey is frivolous...here in Florida the tickets have the store number,time and ticket number on all purchased lottery tickets...the state of New Jersey knows exactly where that winning ticket was purchased...and the ticket number so on so forth they can look at the remaining tickets and see whether or not they are telling the truth...but dont give the money out so fast...wait until the ticket expire and if no one else has come forward then viola they are the winners...so give them the money...the puzzling thing is that they hired an attorney...I would have just followed my advice...wrote a letter to the right person and tried to do it myself...most of us pay attorneys for what we can do ourselves...I know if I accidentally throw away my winning ticket...I would want my money too...every year the lottery get away with millions of dollars in unclaimed prize money all because somebody unknowingly threw away their winning ticket...this is a case where they know they threw it away...so hey give it to them...the fact that they will have to wait months for it to expire and paying an attorney..them along with others have learned a very valuable lesson...BUT if some dumpster diving lottery ticket searching found their winning ticket and no signature...they lose...shall I say in that case...finders keepers losers weeper!!!

           

          Everybody play to win...have a plan in place...look over your ticket...oh yeah..and sign them all as soon as you purchase them...Hyper

          Pay less, win more & world peaceSee Ya!

          "No one cares how much you know until they know how much you care"-Theodore Rooosevelt

            Avatar
            Kentucky
            United States
            Member #32652
            February 14, 2006
            7310 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: July 1, 2014, 9:42 pm - IP Logged

            "Except we have precedent where a winner was able to collect despite no longer having the winning ticket"

            Is there a precedent in NJ? Each state gets to set their own rules for many aspects of multi-state games, without the consent of other states. That other states may bend their particular rules is irrelevant to NJ's choice to enforce theirs. I don't know about other states, but NY specifically allows people to claim without a ticket. In the case of Willis Willis mentioned earlier, the ticket was presented.

            "The story doesn't say if unclaimed ticket was sold in the store where they purchased their tickets and from all we know, there might not be an unclaimed $1 million ticket."

            It may not specifically say that, but it seems pretty clear. They regularly bought tickets at that store, and the lawyer is referring to the serial numbers of tickets 1 & 3. It's also a pretty safe bet that there is an unclaimed winner. If there wasn't I'm fairly sure the lottery would have thought that was a much better reason to deny payment than the claimants' failure to present a ticket.

            "Is there a precedent in NJ?"

            Did you miss the part where I said the story doesn't go into much detail?

            "It may not specifically say that, but it seems pretty clear."

            I would have said the same thing if I thought somebody was going to nit-pic. For the record, was there a unclaimed ticket worth $1 million sold at the same store?

              Avatar
              Albuquerque
              United States
              Member #128941
              June 5, 2012
              19 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: July 2, 2014, 12:01 am - IP Logged

              Their lawyer should google bearer instrument. If an agent of the lottery swindled the player like previous instances they may have a case but because the failed to look closely at the online results too bad. Most lottery websites have disclaimers that state they do their best to post accurate info but are not responsible for mistakes.

                Avatar
                NY
                United States
                Member #23835
                October 16, 2005
                3474 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: July 2, 2014, 3:11 am - IP Logged

                "Is there a precedent in NJ?"

                Did you miss the part where I said the story doesn't go into much detail?

                "It may not specifically say that, but it seems pretty clear."

                I would have said the same thing if I thought somebody was going to nit-pic. For the record, was there a unclaimed ticket worth $1 million sold at the same store?

                I noticed that despite the lack of detail you specifically said there's precedent, so I asked if you  know if there's precedent that matters. I take it you don't?

                I don't know whether or not an unclaimed ticket was sold, but when I speculate about the possibilities I do it based on what makes sense. Since it doesn't make sense for the lottery to deny their claim based on failure to present the ticket if they could deny it because a winning ticket was never even sold the sensible guess is that there was a wining ticket sold. You could have said that based on simple logic or a host of other reasons, but you apparently preferred to point out the unlikely possibility. I've got no idea how that makes the logical observation nitpicking.

                  Avatar
                  Kentucky
                  United States
                  Member #32652
                  February 14, 2006
                  7310 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: July 2, 2014, 9:19 am - IP Logged

                  I noticed that despite the lack of detail you specifically said there's precedent, so I asked if you  know if there's precedent that matters. I take it you don't?

                  I don't know whether or not an unclaimed ticket was sold, but when I speculate about the possibilities I do it based on what makes sense. Since it doesn't make sense for the lottery to deny their claim based on failure to present the ticket if they could deny it because a winning ticket was never even sold the sensible guess is that there was a wining ticket sold. You could have said that based on simple logic or a host of other reasons, but you apparently preferred to point out the unlikely possibility. I've got no idea how that makes the logical observation nitpicking.

                  Lack of details in this story doesn't change the fact there are precedents where players were paid without a ticket.

                  Pedro Quezada, a Dominican immigrant and the owner of the Apple Deli Grocery in Passaic won the March 2013 jackpot, the fourth largest in Powerball history. Quezada took his lottery winnings in a lump sum of $221 million or $152 million after taxes. "Imagine... so much money," Quezada said at a press conference held a few days after he'd won. "But it will not change my heart."

                  It doesn't make much sense to add this detail to the story either, but apparently somebody thought this was important.