Massachusetts Judge Denies Demand for Lump-Sum Lottery Prize Payment

Comment #20

CASH Only — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:27:45 GMT

We simply need more people to boycott Megais bad$ until there is a cash option.

Comment #19

noahproblem — Sun, 02 Jan 2005 12:29:57 GMT

It's unlikely the amount of cash she'd get from a third party would be as much as she would have received had she been able to take a lump sum in the first place.And that's assuming the third party is on the up-and-up (I have my doubts about some of these companies that advertise their services on TV - I'd put them about a half a cut above the shysters who peddle fortune-making secrets on late night infomercials).

Comment #18

urbossmanpimpin — Sun, 02 Jan 2005 09:00:17 GMT

can't she sell the annuity to one of those companies for a cash settlement

Comment #17

Maverick — Sat, 01 Jan 2005 06:05:08 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by hgabel on December 30, 2004The rules were clear and if lottery commissions start making exceptions, you're gonna get chaos.That's true. As much as I want to see her get a cash option decision from the judge, cos she's 94, rules are not made to be broken, except for the majority.It's a known thing to have another person (adult) claim your winning ticket for you , for this reason we see before us (if this game had a cash option), and for other reasons.... [ More ]

Comment #16

hgabel — Sat, 01 Jan 2005 05:53:42 GMT

Er.....feelin' a little silly here!!! Happens when you reread things, sometimes...!!$5.6 million dollars?!?!? That's chicken feed in the lottery world! And here in Canada (I believe Blighty, too) that money would all be paid out. In fact, our lotteries all pay a lump sum - untaxed, too! Mind you, ya gotta pay tax once ya start earning interest, but that's a given.Still say, it's a legal thing. But the legal thing needs to be changed! If it can be done here, it can be done in the hoo-hess-hay!$5.... [ More ]

Comment #15

hgabel — Sat, 01 Jan 2005 03:37:12 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by Lee123 on December 31, 2004Keeping the 7% is all right but what you dont know she is 94 years oldWe DO know she is 94 years old - it's stated in an earlier story!MOST states have the same rule about their lottery jackpots - and they're clearly spelled out. As I said before, if the lottery commissions started making exceptions, you're gonna get chaos.And I do believe the rules are actually a legal thing - ie. can't be arbitarily changed. We're talking legally binding d... [ More ]

Comment #14

Todd — Sat, 01 Jan 2005 02:59:53 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by tg636 on December 31, 2004I'm 40 years old, in good health, and I don't know if I'll be around in 20 years. I just witnessed a 39 year old friend die of cancer. You never know.She should have been able to get the lump sum, but then everyone should be able to. The money is there - they can hand it to a banker to dole out over 20 years or they can hand it to the winner. As fed up as I am with the annuity plan, I would have thanked the heavens that I beat such long odds... [ More ]

Comment #13

tg636 — Sat, 01 Jan 2005 02:43:37 GMT

I'm 40 years old, in good health, and I don't know if I'll be around in 20 years. I just witnessed a 39 year old friend die of cancer. You never know.She should have been able to get the lump sum, but then everyone should be able to. The money is there - they can hand it to a banker to dole out over 20 years or they can hand it to the winner. As fed up as I am with the annuity plan, I would have thanked the heavens that I beat such long odds.The only message the MA lottery understands is money... [ More ]

Comment #12

DoctorEw220 — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:16:25 GMT

i don't see why they wouldn't give her the lump sum. i understand that the mass. lottery doesn't award lump sums for the jackpot in that game, but why canb't they make a special exception

Comment #11

Todd — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:52:01 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by jim695 on December 31, 2004I was wrong.

Comment #10

jim695 — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:27:03 GMT

From the original thread:Oh, for cryin' out loud, people; give me a break!Even the hard and fast laws of nature occasionally treat us to the odd exception, and what's good enough for nature should be good enough for an anal-retentive state lottery director. Where do they find these people??? I suspect that Mr. Sullivan has some difficulty removing his pants without the aid of a good, stout stick.Common sense tells me that Ms. Outing will ultimately prevail, and I would not rule out possible puni... [ More ]

Comment #9

BobP — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 19:45:12 GMT

One has to wonder if the Mass Lottery explained the tax liability of the family when the winner dies? So much for justice these days . . .Selling your prize is not a freebie, you don't get as much as if you took the full amount from the state.BobP

Comment #8

kilowatter — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:42:53 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by Lee123 on December 31, 2004Keeping the 7% is all right but what you dont know she is 94 years oldExactly! She most likely will not be around for the next 20 years to collect all the payments. There supposedly has been people that have lived that long, but the odds are against it.Heck, the odds are against most of us reaching 94

Comment #7

rico4 — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:13:01 GMT

GA for Next 5 days760740

Comment #6

CASH Only — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:15:43 GMT

No lottery winner should have to go through a third party in order to collect a lottery prize in cash. We should all continue to BOYCOTT Mass Megais bad$ and annuity-only scratch games until a true cash option is offered, with no runaround.

Comment #5

Lee123 — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:52:13 GMT

Keeping the 7% is all right but what you dont know she is 94 years old

Comment #4

KyMystikal — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:40:02 GMT

I think I'de take the payments too. Even though I may have been lucky enough to win 5.6 mil I'm not going give someone around $392,264 plus my 5.6 mil just to end up with a lump sum payment of around 5.2 mil. If I won 5.6 mil I want all my money and besides, if I got it all at once I'de probably blow it all and be in bankruptcy court.

Comment #3

SirMetro — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:10:04 GMT

$280,00 a year for 20 years...Heck...I will keep that 7% and be more then happy with such a nice annual paycheck...but then...guess that's just me, oh well.Sir MetroGreed...where would success be without it

Comment #2

hgabel — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 02:17:43 GMT

Before I even read this report, it occurred to me the woman could simply use the services of those institutions that advertise they buy lottery winnings - shop around for the best deal, of course. Maybe now that this decision has been handed down, she will. And by the way, what's this legislation earlier this year thingie? I've seen these companies advertising for years. Well, maybe it's all in the jurisdiction?The rules were clear and if lottery commissions start making exceptions, you're... [ More ]

Comment #1

JAP69 — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:28:16 GMT

Legislature earlier this year to create legislation that allows winners to assign their prizes to a Lottery-registered financial company. These companies provide the winner with a lump-sum check for their winnings (minus a fee, which is as low as seven percent and varies depending on the amount of the prize).who got paid off for that legislation. [pay a fee

Massachusetts Judge Denies Demand for Lump-Sum Lottery Prize Payment

Lottery Post — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:11:10 GMT

Statement from Massachusetts Lottery Executive Director Joseph P. SullivanThe Massachusetts State Lottery is one of the most successful lotteries in the country for many reasons, including that we pay out more prize money and have more winners than any other Lottery in the U.S.In September, we celebrated with Louise Outing when she and her family claimed her $5.6 million prize at Lottery headquarters. At that time, Lottery officials reviewed the rules and regulations of the game, which are also... [ More ]