Lotto winner's ex-wife fights back

Comment #37

CASH Only — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 21:31:48 GMT

Comment #36

David B — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:14:21 GMT

Oh, by the way, there is an I in Divorce.

Comment #35

David B — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:13:34 GMT

What a brilliant forum, it's better than our UK soap opera's.Keep up the good work, it's really fascinating reading.

Comment #34

zanbab — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 01:55:48 GMT

nothing is mentioned about devorce, did they get devorced or what the story dont make sense

Comment #33

BaristaExpress — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 01:38:17 GMT

Any court ordered alimony is not enforceable! Most states can't put you in jail for not paying alimony to the EX! But they can for child support and they should for that! It's just most men are afraid of the thought of that possibility of maybe going to jail for not paying the court ordered alimony, so they pay-up until they get wise or a better lawyer....lol

Comment #32

CASH Only — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:11:28 GMT

Take my wife! Please

Comment #31

AlecWest — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 22:31:51 GMT

> This is the same reason I don't believe in Alimony either. This is not lottery related but is a humorous-but-true aside on alimony. Years ago, a radio/TV personality named Henry Morgan (was a regular on the old What's My Line show) was shocked when his wife was awarded a substantial alimony award ... part of which was to pay for the rent on a Manhattan apartment they both used to live in prior to their split. Morgan's approach was interesting. He didn't challenge the alimony award at all. In... [ More ]

Comment #30

libra926 — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:27:00 GMT

12/27/05lolololololol...................

Comment #29

libra926 — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:12:43 GMT

HAPPY HOLIDAYS CATS ......12/27/05I didn't say that.........I said he the former/or ex-husband to be is stupid ....you should re-read my posting..........loloololololololol

Comment #28

Rip Snorter — Mon, 26 Dec 2005 00:29:01 GMT

Same to all your bath house buddies in New York.

Comment #27

CASH Only — Sun, 25 Dec 2005 18:52:51 GMT

I wish all the exes in Texas a merry Xmas.

Comment #26

Rip Snorter — Sun, 25 Dec 2005 18:23:00 GMT

It's free, mylollipop, unless a man pays for it. In which case it isn't free, but there's a name for the kind of woman who sells it.Whether a man wins a lottery or not, he ought to make sure his kids are warm in the winter, have clothes on their backs, full bellies, and a father to the extent that's possible. Winning the lottery doesn't change that. Making sure they have more than that isn't even doing them a favor.As for a woman he's divorced from, he owes her civility and the courtesy of no... [ More ]

Comment #25

cats135 — Sun, 25 Dec 2005 18:07:31 GMT

Why is the wife stupid?? She didn't do anything.

Comment #24

libra926 — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:25:36 GMT

HAPPY HOLIDAYS....12/24/05... MY LOLOLOLO.......isn't so.....and while we're on the subject, he should have known better. He should have aquired a Mediator to help settle some of the sticky issues that arise in Lieu of going to the Divorce Court, established a Trust Fund for his children, and severed all ties w/her, to avoid this unnecessary ugly Court Battle....He's stupid....Now, she'll fight to ring him like a wet cloth thru her Attorneys and it serves him right.........LOLOLOLOLOoh well... [ More ]

Comment #23

libra926 — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:15:16 GMT

HAPPY HOLIDAY... FJA ....12/24/05I do concurr w/your statement......

Comment #22

csfb — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:46:51 GMT

In divorce cases, where the marriage has already been dissolved, but the court still retains jurisdiction over spousal and/or child support, any party, whether she is a spouse or a child may petition the court to modify the support order when there is a change in personal and/or financial circumstance.The amount of support generally depends on the capacity of the person giving the support and the needs of the person being supported.The lifestyle petitioner got accustomed to during the marriage i... [ More ]

Comment #21

mylollipop — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:40:26 GMT

Seems to me that the children should be winners here! Finally some support! Men do have the audacity to come back to their weak, vulnerable exes. If you dance to t he music, you have to pay the piper, baby! Pay up and shut up. Did you think it was free!? Nothing is free. It costs to marry, more to divorce, to have children, get burried...and the list goes on. It costs to play the lottery and it certainly costs to W-I-N

Comment #20

Chewie — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:40:44 GMT

I see two points wrong in this whole concept: (1) To his favor, he played the lottery game and bought the ticket with (what appears to be) no fraud intended and (2) To his stupidity, he slept with her after he knew he won the money. Both are losers and deserve whatever the courts punishment turns out to be.

Comment #19

acronym007 — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:28:32 GMT

There is so much wrong with this whole picture but any time I hear an EX is going for anything I cringe. That to me is the purest form of greed. My EX won over 1million in a lawsuit and I don't even collect Child Support while I have custody. I don't want it and I have no complaints. I'm happy for her but it's not my money. Why would I go after her? What is an EX? Why do people think EX's owe them something? This is the same reason I don't believe in Alimony either. I think it's wrong. No offens... [ More ]

Comment #18

starchild_45 — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:03:48 GMT

i trust the wife. take all that time to claim the ticket and then put the money off shore. hell he knew he had a ticket and he was still married. i hope they take half of his money.

Comment #17

itsyaboyjc — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 07:54:59 GMT

Oh my God...this is the same lottery draw I almost won..I can't believe that guy won it and does those things.

Comment #16

justxploring — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 07:09:53 GMT

Regarding a Blind Trust, I can't say anything about Canadian law, but most states here (except Delaware I think) will not allow the winner to remain anonymous. Even the Trusts and LLCs that are formed will always list each member for the record. I'm not saying I agree at all with that, since I'd want to be completely anonymous. However, there are a lot of greedy creeps who would let their children go hungry. I read recently that a lot of unpaid child support has been collected from lottery winni... [ More ]

Comment #15

whitmansm2 — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:27:48 GMT

Something isn't right. If they were married for only two days then there will be divorced papers. (proof) If they were legally married there would be papers. (proof) If they were common law married, they would have proof. With no proof, how on God's green Earth are you going to prove anything? But but but he slept with me! (I wouldn't admit that) We made love in our favorite hotel room (freakin' tramp! You had a favorite room? ) We have kids together! (and he still didn't marry you, bu... [ More ]

Comment #14

Iesha Kelly — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:01:43 GMT

ex's aren't responsible for debts accrued after the divorce, though, right? beyond that, i agree with what you have stated, as well.

Comment #13

Iesha Kelly — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 03:59:34 GMT

I agree with everything you posted, particularly the 'they're both right' in regards to him being scum and she also being scum.booty calls do not a long standing relationship prove. they're just booty calls. easy sex. no big deal. what i don't get is that the article claims they were only married for 2 days. there's so much wrong with this picture. at this point, regarding the children, i'd ask for a paternity test.

Comment #12

demonter — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:24:31 GMT

Why a Blind Trust? Please explain.

Comment #11

cv844 — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:03:46 GMT

lol

Comment #10

demonter — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 01:38:44 GMT

As The Lotto Turns ...is this a soap opera script

Comment #9

TheGameGrl — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:17:24 GMT

She is the ex-wife , thus exonerating her to any claims or debts he has. Where is the problem in this case? Seems very clear. They are no longer married, nor is she entitled to his winfall. If he was 50,000 $ in debt I can guarantee you she wouldnt be court ordered to share his debt, instead she'd dodge him like the plague.....Vice Versa scenarios have a way of placing things in a different light I say.

Comment #8

RJOh — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:40:03 GMT

Sounds like it time for this guy to find a new country to live in and take his money with him. Every women he has ever smiled at probably thinks she deserve something from him now (and maybe some guys too).

Comment #7

emilyg — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:33:13 GMT

seems both their pants were on fire

Comment #6

Chewie — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:21:42 GMT

Ms. Ionson says that Mr. Sobeski took her to the Woodstock Quality Inn for a night of lovemaking in their favorite room, which included a whirlpool and a fireplace, yet failed to mention that he had just won $30 million.Ms. Ionson's new documents paint a far different picture: Ray and I had a very passionate and loving relationship, she says. . . . it is obvious from the events of April 2, 2004, when upon picking up a check for $30 million he called me and arranged to see me and spend the n... [ More ]

Comment #5

delS — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:31:52 GMT

Evidently she has the goods on him, in terms of the hotel receipts etc. If you read the story and you understand the legal ramifications (I have experienced divorce and remarriage) he is going to have to share 50% + legal fees. Someone said, he let his little brain get his big brain in trouble. After you factor in the 2 kids he may come away with one third of his lump sum payment. Let this be a lesson to all in tangled relationships, money brings the beast out of everyone.

Comment #4

Rip Snorter — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:43:09 GMT

Ms. Ionson says that Mr. Sobeski took her to the Woodstock Quality Inn for a night of lovemaking in their favorite room, which included a whirlpool and a fireplace, yet failed to mention that he had just won $30 million.She says he's a lowlife, he says she's a moneygrubber. Maybe they're both telling the truth.If they're not married she's just a one-night stand he had the night after he won the lottery, and he was a one-night stand for her, giving her no more claim to his winnings than any ot... [ More ]

Comment #3

fja — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:37:30 GMT

looks like the little brain got his big brain in trouble. ..

Comment #2

Littleoldlady — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:26:59 GMT

If he has 2 children he should support them but otherwise UNLESS he WAS still playing house ..he should be okay. You can't divorce and continue sleeping together ..that means that there is still a relationship.

Comment #1

winner2b — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:55:27 GMT

Win the Lotto; make sure get a Blind Trust

Lotto winner's ex-wife fights back

Lottery Post — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:57:00 GMT

The gloves have come off in the legal battle over Canada's biggest-ever individual lottery jackpot.In a new court filing, Nynna Ionson, the ex-wife of $30 million lottery winner Ray Sobeski, makes it clear that she considers him a calculating liar who would go to almost any lengths to keep his new-found wealth out of her hands. . . .after winning the $30,000,000, the Husband had told reporters that he did not have anyone special in his life, Ms. Ionson says in her 54-page affidavit. He did no... [ More ]