Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 5, 2016, 1:37 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Courts freeze half of $30 million lottery winner's assets

Ontario Lottery and Gaming CorporationOntario Lottery and Gaming Corporation: Courts freeze half of $30 million lottery winner's assets

After picking up his $30-million jackpot from the Super 7 lottery last month, Ray Sobeski enjoyed the kind of financial freedom that most Canadians can only dream of: He cancelled his credit cards, bought $28-million worth of GICs, put $640,000 in a cash account, bought a series of airline tickets and wrote substantial cheques to a few close friends.

A lifelong car enthusiast, Mr. Sobeski now had the money to buy whatever model he chose. But on May 4, his financial affairs took an unexpected turn: He suddenly found himself unable to withdraw enough money for a trip to Tim Hortons, let alone to a Porsche dealership.

With the stroke of a judge's pen, Mr. Sobeski's accounts had been frozen, along with all of his other assets, from his safety deposit box to the black 2002 Chevrolet Cavalier he had parked at his parents' farm near Woodstock, Ont.

"He wasn't a happy man," says an observer familiar with the case. Since then, Mr. Sobeski has regained access to half the money, but still could face a long legal battle.

It's the latest chapter in the intriguing story that has emerged since Mr. Sobeski came forward on April 1 to collect his $30-million windfall, just days before his year-old ticket was to expire.

Mr. Justice David Aston of the Ontario Superior Court ordered Mr. Sobeski's assets frozen on May 4 after reviewing a statement of claim by Nynna Ionson, a 47-year-old Woodstock woman who married Mr. Sobeski in 1998. Ms. Ionson charges that Mr. Sobeski hid his win from her while engineering a plan to keep the money out of her hands. The ruling suggests the courts may see merit in Ms. Ionson's claim.

A second order, released the following day by another judge, gave Mr. Sobeski access to part of his money, but ordered that $15-million be held pending the outcome of Ms. Ionson's court action. The judge also ordered the bank to turn over the details of Mr. Sobeski's bank accounts and investments, along with the records of all withdrawals he has made since he picked up his lottery winnings.

The statement of claim marks a change of heart on the part of Ms. Ionson, who maintained her faith in Mr. Sobeski long after others had advised against it.

"I still love Ray and I was of the belief that he would be in touch with me and that we would continue to be together," she says in the court document. "However, now that I have not heard from him over the past four weeks, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that he does not wish to continue to have a relationship with me and, as such, I have decided to pursue my legal rights."

Those rights may be easier to enforce than some had feared. Although many had speculated about the prospect of Mr. Sobeski transferring his millions offshore, it turns out that the money is in the Royal Bank of Canada, most of it in guaranteed investment certificates and a substantial cash account that Mr. Sobeski apparently used to fund his day-to-day activities after cancelling his credit cards.

A source with extensive knowledge of the case expressed amazement that the funds are still in Canada: "I thought it would be long gone," he said.

The dispute has exposed Mr. Sobeski to extensive public scrutiny. Although he learned in April, 2003, that he had won the lottery, he waited more than 11 months to pick up his jackpot.

At the time, Mr. Sobeski said he delayed collecting the money because he "didn't want to do anything rash." It has since appeared that there is far more to it than that.

Mr. Sobeski has been married three times.

His second wife, Sherry, has two children by Mr. Sobeski and has retained a lawyer to explore her options with respect to child support.

Ms. Ionson, his most recent wife, has taken more aggressive action. In her statement of claim, she says Mr. Sobeski's lottery windfall must be considered as part of the marital assets, meaning that she would be entitled to half of the winnings.

The critical issue will be whether or not the relationship between Ms. Ionson and Mr. Sobeski ended before his lottery win. Through a lawyer, Mr. Sobeski has insisted that he divorced Ms. Ionson in 2002, and that she has no right to any of his newfound riches. Ms. Ionson's statement of claim tells a different story.

She maintains that her relationship with Mr. Sobeski went on long after his lottery win and that he hid his windfall from her while he plotted to keep it out of her hands. When she called his cellphone on the morning of April 1, 2004, she says Mr. Sobeski told her he was in Calgary, when he was actually in Toronto at the Ontario Lottery Corporation picking up his winnings.

Ms. Ionson says Mr. Sobeski appeared in Woodstock that evening, and took her to the Quality Inn for a night of sex, yet failed to mention his newfound wealth. The only incongruity Ms. Ionson noted was the fact that he sent her out for Chinese food, then told her she could keep the change an atypical gesture for the frugal Mr. Sobeski.

Ms. Ionson only learned of the win the next day, when she saw his photograph on the front page of a newspaper. That morning, he had told her he was going away for a few days, but promised to return with a "special surprise." When Mr. Sobeski failed to reappear, Ms. Ionson found her faith tested: "I still love him, and I want to believe in him," she said at the time. "But it's getting harder every day."

Ms. Ionson was an impoverished mother of four children when she met Mr. Sobeski in 1994. They married in 1998. The statement of claim describes a passionate but unusual relationship Mr. Sobeski and Ms. Ionson slept together virtually every night, but she returned to her home in Woodstock each day to care for her children.

The arrangement was at Mr. Sobeski's insistence, according to the statement of claim: "The reason for such an unusual relationship was the fact that Ray was bitter about losing custody of his two children from a previous marriage and did not want to have my children live with us."

Although Mr. Sobeski served her with divorce papers in 2003, Ms. Ionson says he assured her they were a mere formality, designed to smooth over a legal problem. In any dvent, she says, their relationship continued long after Mr. Sobeski won the lottery in April, 2003. The court file includes numerous items to prove the two were together as recently as last month.

Included are restaurant bills, telephone records, photographs, handwritten notes from Mr. Sobeski, and what amounts to a sexual scorecard for this year's Valentine's Day weekend: According to Ms. Ionson's records, the couple had sex once in Mr. Sobeski's car, four times at the Burlington Holiday Inn, once at the London Airport Inn and once at Mr. Sobeski's rented home near Woodstock.

Ms. Ionson's legal documents summarize a long relationship that was abruptly severed by Mr. Sobeski after he collected his $30-million: " ..... the parties started a romantic and conjugal relationship on the 10th of December of 1994 which they continued until the 10th of December of 1998, when they married each other. That relationship continued until the 2nd day of April, 2004, at which time the Defendant left the jurisdiction and has cut off any communication with the plaintiff."

Ms. Ionson believes that even if the courts were to accept the divorce papers served on her by Mr. Sobeski, she is still entitled to half of his winnings, because the lottery draw took place long before the divorce was finalized. "On February 8th, 2004, the date the divorce was granted, Ray had the ticket in his possession, which entitled him to $30,000,000, and as such, I verily believe that the full amount of the $30,000,000 would go into his net family property ....."

Globe and Mail

We'd love to see your comments here!  Register for a FREE membership — it takes just a few moments — and you'll be able to post comments here and on any of our forums. If you're already a member, you can Log In to post a comment.

9 comments. Last comment 12 years ago by CASH Only.
Page 1 of 1
Avatar
Columbia,Pa
United States
Member #3522
January 27, 2004
372 Posts
Offline
Posted: May 25, 2004, 12:04 pm - IP Logged

Money+Female=Trouble

Chas

    lottoshlep's avatar - super 7-top-over.jpg
    BC
    Canada
    Member #2120
    August 19, 2003
    258 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: May 25, 2004, 5:34 pm - IP Logged
    Quote: Originally posted by keystonechas on May 25, 2004



    Money+Female=Trouble

    Chas





    There is a lot more to that story then first apparent as there may be at least 2 other women (plus kids) that could have a rightfull claim to some of the money. This guy waited almost a year to come forward and get the $30M ... seems like he didn't do his 'homework' properly in trying to 'hide' he'd won and screwed all up anyway, now most of the cash is locked in by courts. From what I've heard and read Sobeski is nothing but a greedy sleaze ball (IMO).

    How many $$Million does one person need anyway??

    if at first you don't succeed ... destroy all evidence you ever tried  Cool 

      Avatar
      Milwaukee, WI
      United States
      Member #3131
      December 27, 2003
      665 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: May 25, 2004, 7:59 pm - IP Logged

      Gosh, it's simple.



      They were married, he won, she gets half...



      It's only right...



      Same thing would happen to me... Although I'm happily married...



      MarkP

        mayan27's avatar - Lottery-009.jpg
        Minnesota
        United States
        Member #2426
        October 2, 2003
        84 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: May 26, 2004, 1:15 pm - IP Logged

           

              I have a question for anyone to answer.Why if it happen in the case where they were married,living separately with different partners but have not gotten a divorce and he had this windfall,Would she still be entitle to half the money? With regards to the story i thnk this woman should share the money with him cuz he still had intimate affairs with her even up to the time he claimed the money which i think is unfair to her.Can anyone answer my Question????????


          United States
          Member #916
          December 12, 2002
          18335 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: May 26, 2004, 1:21 pm - IP Logged

          Depending on state law....usually if you are still legally married you are entitled to half of the assets.

            RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
            mid-Ohio
            United States
            Member #9
            March 24, 2001
            19825 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: May 26, 2004, 2:23 pm - IP Logged
            Quote: Originally posted by lottoshlep on May 25, 2004



            How many $$Million does one person need anyway??







            If you are a lottery jackpot winner and you have a choice - ALLLLL.....of it.

             * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
               
                         Evil Looking       

              DoctorEw220's avatar - alien helmet.jpg
              Yinzer Country, PA
              United States
              Member #4067
              March 18, 2004
              2741 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: May 26, 2004, 7:28 pm - IP Logged

              so it seems like Canada has its own Jack Whittaker.

              I've redone my website.  Go to www.dr-ew.com.  I kept a lot of the old stuff, and I've added some new stuff.  Look for more new stuff in the coming weeks.

                Avatar

                United States
                Member #972
                December 30, 2002
                465 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: May 27, 2004, 10:29 am - IP Logged

                I would think it would be pretty simple - tell her you've won $30 million, want to break it off, get divorced, do your own thing, and will be generous but don't want to give her half. Tell her she can have $7 million free and clear right away if she gives up any claim to more, but if she goes after half it will be a long, expensive, painful battle where even if she dventually wins she won't see the money, the amount reduced quite a bit by legal bills, for a long time.  What would most people do if given a choice like that?


                  United States
                  Member #379
                  June 5, 2002
                  11296 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: June 9, 2004, 7:55 pm - IP Logged

                  tg:

                  I'd take the CA