More details surface that leave behind unanswered questions
By Kate Northrop
After a judge extended the expiration date of a $12.8 million jackpot-winning lottery ticket to identify the rightful winner, case documents revealed two more individuals who may have a claim to the prize.
The story surrounding a $12.8 million The Pick jackpot-winning ticket is getting more interesting now that two more people have been named in the legal battle.
In May, a judge extended the 180-day expiration date for the jackpot so that the court could figure out who the winning ticket rightfully belongs to. The extension was granted after the judge said that the court was "nowhere near" a decision, and that the case was in "waiting mode" while Circle K continued their efforts to identify important individuals involved in the generation of the ticket.
In the latest release of court documents, two more individuals have been named in the lawsuit, including the customer who originally made the purchase that produced the winning ticket.
In May, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Kreamer filed an order to compel Bank of America to provide details on the person's name and contact information since Circle K was in possession of her debit card number, and although it's unconfirmed whether that led to her identification, Soonchun Kim was nonetheless identified as the player who triggered the purchase but ultimately left the winning ticket behind.
Kim did not say whether she would pursue a claim to the ticket, she told the Phoenix New Times. However, the second latest person named in the case is staking a claim. Documents reveal Marline Ybarra as the Circle K employee who "sold" the ticket to store manager Robert Gawlitza after he clocked out.
Once Gawlitza paid for the ticket, which he knew was a winner for the $12.8 million jackpot, Ybarra signed the back of it. Proceedings do not confirm whether Ybarra and Gawlitza had made an agreement to jointly claim the winnings.
The Phoenix New Times reported that Ybarra was being represented by the same attorney as Gawlitza, but the court docket currently shows her as representing herself.
The most recent case update fills in some gaps but elicits some new questions. Originally, the clerk at Circle K had printed $85 in lottery tickets, but Kim elected only to purchase $60 worth. She had left behind the remaining stack and left, leaving a pile of unpurchased tickets at the counter.
But filings mention that "some of the tickets fell behind the printer," which suggests the possibility that Kim might not have known they were printed to begin with.
Kim had also asked the clerk to reprint numbers from tickets she played previously, but documents do not yet confirm whether the jackpot winning ticket was produced with the numbers she requested.
Now that all potential claimants have been named and served, the next expected step is for the judge to ultimately decide ownership of the ticket.
Split the jackpot with all involved. Let everyone get a piece.
Can they include me in the claim, JustMaybe 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The judge should declare himself the rightful owner of the ticket.
That's a lazy decision. Only the rightful owner should receive the prize.
oh wow, a new scammer character is introduced. why did she sign the ticket either before or after "selling" it to gawlitza? why did gawlitza try to claim something with her signature on it and not his? did they not know the claimant has to be the one to sign the ticket??? judge ain't gonna rule in favor of either of these two.
Ybarra's signing of the ticket suggests and supports the existence of an agreement with Gawlitza. The agreement is a nullity.
If, it is determined that Soonchun Kim had caused the winning ticket to be generated, I think she deserves a fair chance and I mean get the whole prize - so long as she pays for all other tickets generated in her name that she did not pay for due to insufficient funds in her account.
"Can they include me in the claim "
Why not?
Upside: your claim is just as good as Kim's or Ybarra 's.
Downside: in this case "just as good" means not even a snowball's chance in hell.
"why did she sign the ticket either before or after "selling" it to gawlitza?"
Common sense says that either she's a moron or she knew what was going on when Gawlitza wanted to buy tickets after the drawing. Maybe she's not a moron and it was her attempt to get a share of anything Gawlitza got.
"did they not know the claimant has to be the one to sign the ticket???"
The claimant may have to sign the ticket, but if somebody who isn't a lawful owner signs it it doesn't give them a claim on it.
"If, it is determined that Soonchun Kim had caused the winning ticket to be generated, I think she deserves a fair chance and I mean get the whole prize "
That the ticket was generated because she's the one who asked for a bunch of tickets is irrelevant to ownership. If you ask a store to order any product and then you tell them you don't want it and you don't pay for it after they get it then you don't have any ownership interest in it. It doesn't matter whether it's a lottery ticket or a special order widget from Lowes.
"so long as she pays for all other tickets generated in her name "
They weren't "generated in her name". They were generated for the retailer to resell if there was a legitimate buyer, and the retailer owns it until the sales transaction is completed. Her chance to buy the tickets she abandoned ended when the drawing was held before she came back to pay for them. And to be clear, I've seen nothing to indicate that she ever even had any intention to come back and buy them.
If Circle K thinks and believes as you have reasoned, I see no reasons why they would not have presented the thicket for payment and call it a day. Circle K knows that the transaction is not as straight forward as it appears and the lottery knows this factor.
Ultimately the Lottery itself is the vendor. Circle K is the middleman. Circle K does not buy and generate a bunch of tickets and then resells them. It orders the tickets upon the placement of an order from the customer. The customer reserves the rights to those unpaid for ticket when she comes back with the money for them.
While she has not come back to pay for the tickets, the time to do so, has not expired because the winning ticket has not been validated and/or cashed.
Would love to see Soonchun Kim get the winning ticket.
However,
She purchased a batch of lottery tickets and did not make sure she had the money to cover it BEFORE she made the purchase.....
(UNLESS changes are made for the better, how a person manages money before a win is a clear indication of how they will manage it afterward one.)
I think soon-kim intended to purchase all the tickets.. soon-kim used a debit card to purchase. The article said some of the tickets fell behind the printer, mabye the clerks incompetence caused soon-kim to leave with less tickets.
Your comment "Would love to see Soonchun Kim get the winning ticket" is completely fair.
Unlike Walmart who buys their products from the manufactures and stock their warehouses and stores and just wait for the customers to come, because the products are unavoidable necessities for life and the business model is simply smart and brilliant on Walmart's side. The Customer wins - gets the products they want at a price they can be happy with. Walmart wins - sells its products and makes a little change for its services in bringing the products to all.
Circle K on the other hand does not buy tons of lottery tickets and wait for the customers to come, knowing very well that the tickets can all fail. From the get go, the terminals used to create and register the tickets are the Lottery's. Circle K is simply working in agency for the State lottery and at the end of the day Soochun, Kim have not declined to pay for the unpaid tickets and Circle K knows this fact and that is why it is trying to get a court ruling on the matter and plant a false alibi that it had not acted to shaft its customer of justice and fairness in the game.
I would not reduce the clerk's actions to "incompetence". The clerk is experienced but is human.
Soonchun Kim left, because they was insufficient fund in her account to cover the purchase.
There are a lot of twists and turns in this story. It started with one guy buying. a day old lottery ticket
My bet is Circle K will get the money . They owned the ticket at the time of the draw.