Payout is anonymous, but winner's identity may be revealed later, pending court case
A woman who sued the New Hampshire state lottery commission asking it to allow her to collect the $559.7 million prize she had won without making her name public collected her winnings on Wednesday, lottery officials said, and kept her privacy for now.
The woman won the fifth-largest jackpot in the history of the multi-state Powerball lottery drawing in early January but began her legal odyssey when she signed her winning ticket with her own name, which would make her identity a matter of public record.
(See NH Powerball lottery winner sues for anonymity, Lottery Post, Feb. 2, 2018.)
The winner's attorney, William Shaheen, said in a statement he was collecting the prize in the name of the Good Karma Family 2018 Nominee Trust, which the winner established to serve as a legal mechanism to accept the money. Her award was a one-time payment that came to $264 million after taxes.
In court papers, Shaheen, a former federal prosecutor who is married to New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen, had asked a judge to allow the winner to amend her ticket to show only the name of a trust. He argued that had the winner created the trust before signing the ticket, she could have collected her winnings without making her identity public.
"We recognize the tremendous interest this prize has generated but hope you appreciate our client's desire to maintain a sense of normalcy by keeping her name confidential," Shaheen said in a statement.
He said the winner immediately donated $250,000 of her winnings to four New Hampshire charities aimed at improving girls' lives and fighting hunger.
A state court judge is still determining whether to allow the winner to keep her name out of the public record. The state lottery commission last month agreed to pay out the prize while the court case continued.
Great news. Maybe this will lead to at least having a winner remain anonymous for a period of time, like 6 months, and start a precedent.
I agree Artist. Even if a short period of time it gives a person time to move.
I'm sure the usual LP suspects are extremely disappointed.
"the winner immediately donated $250,000 of her $264 million after tax winnings to four New Hampshire charities"
That comes to less than 0.1%. Why did she even bother?
I hope she wins her case and it sets a precedent for other states to enact similar privacy laws to protect winners.
that's just plain cheap wow millionaire only donated 250,000 to 4 charities u can't take it with u
I believe that "the sanctity of the home" played a major part in the judge's decision. I agree with all the posters who agree with this decision. One more step closer to anonymity in another State.
"I believe that "the sanctity of the home" played a major part in the judge's decision."
What decision do you think the judge made?
"He said the winner immediately donated $250,000 of her $264 million after tax winnings"
Fixed that for you. Just because her lawyer says something doesn't make it true. He's been trying to use BS instead of the law to win the case since they came up with the name of the trust.
"That comes to less than 0.1%. Why did she even bother?"
How much of her winnings do you think she should donate in the very first week that she's rich?
According to a YouTube video, the Court has not made the final decision. She will appeal if she loses.
When I win I will ask everyone to stop spending my money. You should get elected if you want to spend other people's money.
My fingers are crossed 4 her ...... ought to be most interesting
at minimal they ought to allow a person/s at least 6 months
Lol. A perfect response.
For the actual allegedly real attorneys out there, one can find precedent or distinguish any existing law or rule in existance. That is how a body of case law develops. It seems like most of the people who are not attorneys, have a better grasp of how case law develops.
She just got the money yesterday and folks are upset because she hasn't given enough (for them) of it away. smh
Congratulations to her. Hope she can keep her privacy.
.1% donation. if that amount - or any amount - held sway in the Judge's decision I would be shocked.
However, the longer she gets "allowed" to remain anonymous is a great potential precedent for future winners. I'm all for having her have her name put on display after she finally loses all her appeals; thus finally stopping the clock for her as "test case" in what could be future reasonable expectation of time-frames for anonymity. 3 months after collecting? 6 months after collecting?