Court will decide who owns the ticket after last-minute exemption
By Kate Northrop
The Arizona Lottery granted a retailer's request to extend the expiration deadline of a $12.8 million Arizona Lottery jackpot-winning ticket while the court figures out who is legally entitled to the prize.
Just days before a $12.8 million winning ticket for The Pick was about to expire, the Arizona Lottery extended its lifespan so the court could have more time to decide who rightfully owns it.
In April, Circle K filed a temporary restraining order to ask Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Kreamer to stop the Arizona Lottery from allowing the ticket to expire on May 23 so that legal proceedings can continue.
The day before the latest hearing on Friday, May 15, the Arizona Lottery advised Circle K that they would suspend the 180-day claim period for the winning ticket. It's a request that Kreamer said he would grant anyway, so the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction remains in effect.
In return, Circle K handed over the ticket to the Lottery to validate it, and the Lottery will keep it until the rightful owner can be determined.
The court battle is over a ticket that was left behind by a customer who declined to keep it after it was printed. It ended up winning a $12.8 million The Pick jackpot, and the next day, former Circle K manager Robert Gawlitza removed his uniform, clocked out, and purchased it.
Circle K is asking the court to decide true ownership of the ticket since Gawlitza purchased the ticket after the drawing had already taken place.
Arizona Lottery rules state that tickets generated by a player and refused by said player belong to the retailer who printed it, so long as the retailer does not manage to resell it.
During the hearing on May 15, the judge said that the court is "nowhere near" a decision, and that the case is currently resting in "waiting mode" while Circle K continues their work to identify important individuals, including the customer who originally made the purchase that produced the winning ticket.
Circle K is reportedly in contact with Bank of America to try and obtain records that may help them identify the customer in question, who is currently being referred to as Jane or John Doe in court documents. They have the player's debit card number and believe them to be a woman.
The court heard that Bank of America has not been cooperating, refusing to provide the person's name and contact information, but Kreamer said that he would sign an order that would compel the bank to come forward with those details so that the key party can be named in the lawsuit.
"That information is critical to be able to identify Jane Doe," Gray added.
The retailer chain must also serve Gawlitza papers for the legal battle to proceed, but they have been unable to do so since he no longer works for the store and was not present in court on Friday.
Attorney for Circle K Amanda Gray said that they have attempted to serve Gawlitza twice now, but they're not giving up.
"We have at third spot we're going to try," Gray said in the hearing. "We've provided all the filings in the case to him via email."
Defense attorney Josh Kolsrud, who has no connection to the case, told Fox10 that he thinks the law favors Circle K.
"It really affects the integrity of the lottery if you allow people to benefit who have insider knowledge," Kolsrud told the media outlet in an interview. "He [Gawlitza] has to show that he did not know that the winning ticket was at that Circle K."
If the employee bought the ticket, why/how did the store get ahold of the actual ticket?
Can you imagine if you were the one that purchased that ticket, and had to give it back for whatever reason. Life sucks sometimes.
It belongs to the initial purchaser. If she left it it shouldve been canceled, but The worker knew it won which is why he "brought" it. Think we need more details.
Now the court has agreed to a expiration extension, they have set a precedent for future arguments over a lottery ticket. This ruling only applies to the Arizona State lottery games and MUSCL lottery games not apply for future possible disputes over a Mega Million or Powerball ticket but it will be challenged.
Purchasing a ticket under false pretenses will make it invalid . The employee knew it was a winner before purchasing it. On the clock or off it was still purchased under false pretenses.
*The report said the owner of the ticket declined it, more like ( forgot ) it at the store. It's why Bank of America is now involved.
* According to the article, the ticket was purchased using a debit card. Seems the purchase was legitimate and Circle K wants the money going to the original purchaser, just not Gawlitza.
Extending deadline is wrong .Now they need to extend deadline for anyone who requests it to be extended. They should have cash the ticket and place in escrow
Suppose you cannot find your jackpot winning ticket and you have one week to claim it. Will a judge extend the deadline so you might be able to find it?? This ruling just proves that expiration deadlines are horse poop
that part is the mystery. it looks like gawlitza has given up his claim and no longer cares.
Arizona rules state that any tickets printed for a player that are refused by said player are the property of the retailer that printed it so long as the retailer does not manage to sell it. Gawitzer bought the ticket so it should belong to him. Why he doesn't have possession of the ticket or why he's hiding is the big mystery
It belongs to the store. According to the article, the customer declined the "printed ticket" and Arizona lottery rules states, that when that happens the retailer gets to keep the ticket, provided he does not resell it.
The Manager, fraudulently purchased the ticket because he knew it was a winner. Who in their right mind would purchase a day old lottery ticket?
The ticket was technically resold, the knucklehead Gawlitza bought it. Why he didn't give it to a family member to cash it in we will never know.
"Kreamer said that he would sign an order that would compel the bank to come forward with those details so that the key party can be named in the lawsuit. "
Named in the lawsuit or subpoenaed as a witness? It might be useful to have the original prospective buyer testify that the reports that they requested all of the tickets but chose not to buy some of them are correct, but AFAIK they've never come forward (or why the need to use the debit card to identify them?) to assert a claim of ownership. I'm not seeing a reason to name them as a defendant.
" According to the article, the ticket was purchased using a debit card. Seems the purchase was legitimate and Circle K wants the money going to the original purchaser, just not Gawlitza. "
Even if Circle K was a charity why would they want any money to go to the person who used a debit card to buy other tickets but was never a purchaser of the winning ticket? I suppose there's a possibility that they'd like to give them a modest amount since Circle K would never have become the lawful owner of a jackpot winning ticket if it weren't for that person, but I can't imagine any reason they'd ever suggest the ticket belongs to that person instead of Circle K.
"Now they need to extend deadline for anyone who requests it to be extended. "
"Will a judge extend the deadline so you might be able to find it?? This ruling just proves that expiration deadlines are horse poop "
Is there any chance you've noticed that this is about a dispute over who owns the ticket and can make a lawful claim and not a case of somebody whose difficulties are their own fault?
"Who in their right mind would purchase a day old lottery ticket? "
The correct question is who in their right mind would sell a jackpot winning ticket at face value? The answer is, of course, nobody.
"Gawitzer bought the ticket "
No, Gawlitz took a ticket that Circle K never offered to sell him. In some unusual circumstances leaving some money behind when you take something that wasn't offered for sale might prevent that taking from being theft, but when something isn't offered for sale there's nothing you can do that turns taking it into a purchase.
KY-- many stores offer rejected tickets for sale. Granted nobody would purchase one after the draw date, unless they saw that the ticket was a winner. Gawlitza left the store, changed his clothes, returned and purchased a ticket he knew was a winner. Evidently it must have been against company policy for employees to purchase rejected tickets