Piqua lottery winners sued by co-workers

Comment #74

KeithK — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:08:20 GMT

Seems to me the best way to address this issue of pool carryovers from small wins would be to include in your rules that wins under $X will be donated to Y 501(c)(3) non-profit charity, instead of used to buy more tickets on the next draw. Buying more tickets just seems like a really bad idea, it opens the door for all sorts of ludicious claims.

And someone who is serious about operating a pool should form a corporation (with seperate bank account, etc) to operate the pool as this will allow

Comment #73

LottoPools — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 01:10:44 GMT

I called this one on an earlier post.

I run two lottery pools (a MM and a PB), each of which will last about a year. When I first started running pools, I left myself open to a lot of problems; luckily, we never won. From reading about lawsuits on this site, I made up a list of rules that you have to agree to if you want to play in my pool. The rules are on a buy-in receipt that you must sign. I update the rules for new pools as I hear about new issues in new lawsuits.

The receipt inc... [ More ]

Comment #72

carnifex — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 01:07:54 GMT

Again it just doesn't add up simply because the guy who put in 2 bucks (1 for himself, 1 for his mother) was given two shares of the pot. If the rest of the 13 agreed that was fair and within their lotto pot agreement... then it seems there were two agreements made on how to split the winnings. Seems to be in the A little to convenient department for me. Plus can always roll on over to Dayton Daily News (where this forum got the article) and read the comments there. Lots of emotion and hearsay b... [ More ]

Comment #71

KY Floyd — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:06:36 GMT

Let's consider that you were actually hit by a sober nun who honestly believes she wasn't on thee sidewalk, then. Plenty of lawsuits (and criminal cases) are essentially he said she said cases.

In the Piqua case, the plaintiffs are claiming an agreement that all would share. Such an agreement strikes me as foolish if people chose whether or not to participate on a draw by draw basis, but we have no way of knowing what the agreements really were. Perhaps there was such an agreement, based on t... [ More ]

Comment #70

carnifex — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 08:36:14 GMT

Well I don't know how it is from state to state exactly, but pretty much if you're driving drunk you're guilty of driving under the influence no matter what happened. Pulled over for speeding, drunk? DUI. No seatbelt, drunk? DUI. Got hit by another drunk, while you were drunk? DUI for two.

So, whether or not I can absolutely prove I didn't step out on the road or not, the guy who hit me is still charged with a DUI which he will have to defend against seperately. And based on his winning... [ More ]

Comment #69

KY Floyd — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:31:29 GMT

You've got two choices. You can require that people have absolute proof before bringing a legal action, or you can allow them to bring that action when they may not be able to prove their case. If you choose the former, you'll be SOL if you're on a deserted sidewalk and get hit by a drunk driver who claims you stepped into the road. If you choose the latter, innocent people will sometimes be sued or arrested.

Unless the people suing beleieve that they don't have a legitimate claim this is no... [ More ]

Comment #68

AmuzingP3s — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:07:43 GMT

Hi, LottoLove

The way we did ours: we always played the same 18-number wheel and the same amount of draws, 42. We always contributed $10.50 per draw to make up the $42.00. We were only 4 and the same group of people. We didn't play every draw, just after the jackpot hit a certain amount.

As an example, and to answer your question, if we had won $7.00 as you mention, we would divide the $7.00 among the 4 members for a payout of $1.75 a piece. When the next opportunity to play arises, we wou... [ More ]

Comment #67

Lotto*Love — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:44:13 GMT

I've never been in a lottery pool before, so I'm not sure how it runs.

If a office pool is say...10 people....is each drawing $10 always? What I mean by that is if the 10 people pitch in $1.00 each for a $10.00 ticket..and it turns out NOT to be a winner..then the next drawing is $1 ea. for $10. ticket again.

If their $10.00 ticket turns out to win say $7.00, do they still collect $1.00 from everyone for $10...and ADD the $7 previous win for a total of $17.00 worth of tickets?

I could u... [ More ]

Comment #66

AmuzingP3s — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:58:31 GMT

Hi, Libra926

Happy New Year to you too! I am almost sure I posted the reason why we stopped the pool, but to my surprise, I now see it isn't there. The company I used to work decided to downsize and offered a package to those who wanted it. Two of us in the pool took that offer, so we took our money bags and left and the pool dissolved. I wasn't really that specific on my original post, I just said two of us had decided to quit our jobs.

I now Lotto on my own, but only every now and t... [ More ]

Comment #65

libra926 — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:11:48 GMT

AmuzingP3s......Happy New Year

......My only question is why did you stop managing your office pool.......considering how organized you were, better than some accountants.....;....) Why did you stop

Comment #64

carnifex — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:17:39 GMT

Yeah just the point is, there's a crime being committed there. People trying to take what isn't theirs. Now this isn't to say there are legitimate claims to be made as to winning tickets being shared ventures between people, but there's just too much room to allow for someone to extort you under a watercooler discussion of if you won or a he said/she said type deal. There should be a real threat of criminal charges if you try to pull this on someone and it comes to light that you really had no l... [ More ]

Comment #63

grengrad — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:28:54 GMT

Carnifex: I have to wonder because if people can just tie up your money until you get so sick of waiting you pay them off...what's to stop them from doing it?

Nothing, just the cost of their lawyer, but there are some lawyers who might take the case for no upfront costs.

If you are missing out on 4%/year of $25,000,000, that is $1,000,000 per year you lose, and financial battles might take a few years. You can counter sue them for cost's, but chances are they don't have the money to pay y... [ More ]

Comment #62

autoprt — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 07:08:39 GMT

well said,

i wouldn't even bother bringing up anything like this if i were involved.

they weren't there, they didn't pay they lost out. Basically in pools all you are doing is adding the tickets you buy to the other tickets that are bought.

i'm sure if the numbers didn't come out they wouldn't have paid any money to the pool and probably didn't do so when they were out in the past. all they had to do was call that day of the drawing and tell someone to add their share of the money and t... [ More ]

Comment #61

AmuzingP3s — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:22:56 GMT

Hi, and welcome to LP DavidTn

That's how is done, when I was managing my club, I used do everything, no matter what happened. From picking the numbers (they wanted me to), collecting the money, filling out the cards, purchasing the tickets, preparing the agreement (which was signed by everyone), and making and distributing the copies of both tickets and agreement. Oh, there was one thing that one of the guys used to help me with, and that was to proof the tickets against the software list of... [ More ]

Comment #60

davidtn — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:07:50 GMT

I agree with you Mario 38. I'm starting a pool here in my office and everyone will sign an agreement of understanding that will state who's eligible to collect winnings, etc. etc. I still drive daily even though car wrecks continue to happen. You do what you can to mitigate the risks and then move forward with your chosen course of action.

Oh and yes I'm a new member. Hello to all from Tennessee.

Comment #59

ThatScaryChick — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 05:03:02 GMT

Yep, I agree. There is no way they would have been able to hide their win from the people they work with. Gossip spreads and people talk. They would have found out.

Comment #58

time*treat — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:36:43 GMT

Not as a rule, in America. The defendants would have to countersue for that.

Comment #57

AmuzingP3s — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:10:19 GMT

I agree with you, Barista, an agreement should be signed by each contributor every single time they play. I used to be in charge of a small lottery pool (4 people) at my old job. I used to make copies of the tickets purchased and a copy of the signed agreement every single time, and gave each one a copy of those. The actual tickets were securely locked up until after the draw. If there was a win, no matter how small it was, it was never rolled over into the next game. It was always evenly distri... [ More ]

Comment #56

DC81 — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:04:42 GMT

It wouldn't have matter if they did or not, they still probably would have been sued and exposed. Their co-workers would have certainly known, besides that's just too many people to keep something a secret.

Comment #55

DelmarvaChick — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:33:06 GMT

I don't know why they just didn't claim this prize through a blind trust . You can do that here in Ohio. I thought it was pretty weird (read as not smart ) that they were so open with their new found finances. The news even said they were consulting a lawyer before officially claiming their prize, so I was really excited for them.

Oh well...

Comment #54

Stew12 — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:40:31 GMT

Then ask, where were you when I was poor

Comment #53

LckyLary — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:33:29 GMT

Attention, Elicia B.! Put your boxing gloves on and come to Piqua!!!

When I play in such a pool.. there are days when due to whatever reason I don't get to put in. I would hope if they won they'd share even if I missed it that drawing but I'd not sue them if they didn't.. it is their decision. Never promise anything about if you win; if you do they may hold you to it! Then ask, where were you when I was poor

Comment #52

Mario38 — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 06:46:37 GMT

I am surprised by the number of people who say never join a pool whenever they see news of a lottery pool related lawsuit. Reminds me of a friend that never drove a car because he once read about a car accident.

Comment #51

myturn — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 03:57:28 GMT

This story illustrates to all lottery winners the importance remaining anonymous. Don't get mixed-up in syndicates, play as an individual or buy a subscription.

Comment #50

wizeguy — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 13:41:48 GMT

Experience is the ability to recognize a mistake, the second time you make it.

Comment #49

rundown99 — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 13:17:10 GMT

I Agree with you on that one. If you do any type of gambling, definitely do it alone! Sometimes, the only way people ever learn is if something like this directly happens to them.

Comment #48

carnifex — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 10:49:23 GMT

Well from my limited knowledge of the court tv shows, which are just minor sums of money in comparison. The judge usually only awards court costs if the people have a real reason to sue. Like, they don't bear any of the burden at all. Most recent example was a woman who was hit by a car that backed up to try to get to a gas station when it ran out of gas, but she was crossing in the middle of the street instead of at a cross walk so she was found 30% at fault. Could be wrong, but the judge doesn... [ More ]

Comment #47

savagegoose — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:38:08 GMT

isnt it the losers of the court case have to pay legal fees

Comment #46

four4me — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 03:11:08 GMT

What KY Floyd said and so did i It doesn't matter what is written on paper if someone wants to contest it they can period. Where big money is concerned in a lottery pool members of the pool can be disputed by anyone who has or think they have a claim in said pool. If they were in a previous pool and for some reason were left out of a future pool they might be bitter if the members of a pool won a jackpot and file a claim... it has happened many times before and it will happen many times again.... [ More ]

Comment #45

JWBlue — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 02:32:24 GMT

You are probably right about that contract not being valid. The mistake was using winnings from the previous drawing.

Comment #44

carnifex — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 00:18:41 GMT

Hello there. Yeah long post to start with but, I live pretty close to Piqua and all of this just bugs me. Not involved with it anyway besides hearing about it on the news and people talking about it. Really don't think it's a fair shake for the winners to have people who don't contributed steadily to have their winnings withheld until it's over. On the other hand, if there is an agreement, what they are suing for just doesn't make sense in a reasonable context. Because their lack of contribution... [ More ]

Comment #43

KY Floyd — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:58:41 GMT

It's a bit more f-ing difficult than you thought, and it took you less than 5 minutes to get it wrong. If you let me play in the pool for tonight's drawing and we win, some of that money is mine. Period. If that money is spent on tickets for the next drawing, I now own a portion of any winnings from that drawing. Period. Contracts are held to be invalid, in whole or in part, every day, and you've written one that would never hold up in court.

Allowing people to choose to be in or out of indiv... [ More ]

Comment #42

JWBlue — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:16:13 GMT

Nothing wrong with an office pool. Just put everything in writing. Be clear about the rules.

If they decide to buy tickets with any small amount won, put it in writing.

Any proceeds from winning tickets totaling $50.00 or less from a drawing are used to purchase tickets for the next drawing the pool participates in. Use of winning ticket proceeds from a previoius drawing does not make the participants from the previous drawing that had proceeds from winning tickets eligible for

Comment #41

four4me — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 08:18:26 GMT

When we had lottery pools where i worked one person was the designated ticket purchaser each of us, only ten players would be in the pool... the first 10 people to put up a buck. The rest were out of luck. This was understood from the get go that under no circumstances if you weren't among the first 10 people in the pool then you weren't in the pool. Weren't entitled to any of the money should the group of ten win a jackpot.

Lots of times people that were in the pool were not always in t... [ More ]

Comment #40

Coin Toss — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 05:13:07 GMT

I'll say it again, gambling should always be a solo endeavor.

Comment #39

wizeguy — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 05:09:43 GMT

Hi carnifex, welcome to Lottery Post

Comment #38

carnifex — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 04:44:28 GMT

I find it unlikely that a verbal agreement was made in light of one man putting in two dollars and getting two shares worth of money from the pot.

MegaMillions only pays out in amounts of 2, 3, 7, 10, 150, 10k, 250k. So I would consider anything under 150 to be a insignificant winning ticket. Since the number of people playing is more than the amount being paid....would you really want to be paid in change? So it only makes sense to play it forward to help the next pot stand better odds, or p... [ More ]

Comment #37

cashmoney$girl — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:55:57 GMT

This is why i really don't like lottery pools, i did it maybe once or twice over the years.

Comment #36

justxploring — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:18:21 GMT

I wouldn't mind being in an office pool. The more tickets, the better chances of winning. But I'd be darn sure I contributed to the pot every week and had a receipt.

As far as splitting the jackpot 19 ways instead of 15, I agree with KY Floyd. They'll still be a lot better off than they were before!

They should have had a written agreement, so I believe the 4 coworkers have a valid lawsuit. There is power in numbers and 4 people are making the same claim, so it's possible they're telling... [ More ]

Comment #35

KY Floyd — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 06:40:31 GMT

Lottery Pools are a bad idea this stuff happens quite a bit I would never participate in one!!!

Yeah, I'll bet they're really sorry they ever formed that pool.

Regardless of how this case turns out, it is just another black mark against office pools.

They formed an office pool and they won about $145 million. If they have to share it 19 ways instead of 15, and they lose a few million to legal fees they'll still pocket more money that they would have earned during their entire lives.... [ More ]

Comment #34

Stew12 — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:26:12 GMT

quit making me sick and share

If the winners weren't planning on paying out these other 4 members it was probably because the 4 were lazy for the week and thought they'd save a few bucks since the pool would most likely not win anyway. If they truely were out of the office when money was collected, they could have easily sent an email or called to say they would gladly make up the money next time they were in, and any group would be more than willing to consider them 'in' for the drawing in t... [ More ]

Comment #33

rundown99 — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 03:21:56 GMT

This group of city employees which made themselves public is now getting sued by jealous co-workers who played in previous drawings.

Lessons to be learned:

#1. Buy lottery tickets alone

#2. Play the lottery in a state where you can be anonymous

Seems like the perfect plan to me. Where am I wrong

Comment #32

LotteryTechInc — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 00:25:43 GMT

Lottery Pools are a bad idea this stuff happens quite a bit I would never participate in one

Comment #31

zero — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 23:55:13 GMT

That's right.

Comment #30

jr-va — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 23:52:06 GMT

the 41 million lawsuit is probably based on the original 200+ million prize

I don't know. The article did not elaborate.

Given the facts available, yes, I find it sickening that a lawsuit has to be filed. As previously stated, the pool did have money available during that day's absence of the entire pool with which to purchase the winning ticket. And they are all frequent pool participants.

I do not necessarily mean they should quit their job at once, but rather with proper... [ More ]

Comment #29

DC81 — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 23:30:39 GMT

The cash option was around 146M. Quit making you sick? Are you one of the people suing? After everything is said and done many of them probably won't be able to quit anything once they finish with taxes and now paying lawyers. If you think that their quitting is just going to bring openings for someone else then you're kidding yourself, I'd bet most of those jobs won't be replaced. Not to mention the problems that could cause for the city to have 14-18 employees quit at once. If these people win... [ More ]

Comment #28

RJOh — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 23:25:34 GMT

i 'm using a system to beat the odds hopefully i will win very soon.

You, me and about 50 other LP members are thinking they've got a system to beat the odds.

Comment #27

bashley572 — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 23:11:39 GMT

I agree with the idea of sharing and with the 'winnings' from the prior play coming into account I think they will receive something.

I also agree that in todays economy they should leave there jobs so others who are either unemployed or not making much can get access to those jobs. The winner s new job should be how to live the rest of their lives on the money they won.

Comment #26

jr-va — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 22:53:37 GMT

I think 41 million still leaves over $ 160 million , they are all co-workers who frequently contributed to the pool, but were unavailable that day. However, even in their absence, pool money was available with which to purchase the winning ticket.

My opinion is: quit making me sick and share. To be honest they should also quit their job and make openings for alot of their fellow unemployed people.

Comment #25

grengrad — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 22:29:14 GMT

Another office pool, another lawsuit.

It seems a bit unlikely that the people in the pool would refuse them their share if this was a legit case.

The pool even had no problem with 1 person getting two shares, because he put an extra dollar in for his mom.

That would make it seem clear that the pool required you to actually put in 1 dollar per share for a given drawing. Also, since these people each put in a dollar for this pool, any winnings that did roll over would give the other 4 a s... [ More ]

Comment #24

MysteryMan424 — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 19:27:19 GMT

Here's a New Year resolution for all Mega-Millions pools, count the number of draws for the year 2009, multiply that by the amount to be played for each drawing, from each player. Elect one or two from the group to be in charge. get the total amount from each player up front before the first drawing. Cash and retain any small prizes. If no jackpot was won everyone's payment for 2010 will be reduced equally by the winnings. Put it in writing, Everyone agrees to the rules or don't join, also if so... [ More ]

Comment #23

DC81 — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:08:44 GMT

I saw it coming and I knew a few others did as well. I think most of them better keep working because by the time this possibly gets worked out they might have even less of the JP winnings left.

Comment #22

foragoodcause — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:32:16 GMT

I agree,you don't have to go through all the problems,i 'm using a system to beat the odds hopefully i will win very soon.

Comment #21

Plus39 — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:54:30 GMT

Did anybody not see this coming

Comment #20

RJOh — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:38:26 GMT

Sound familiar? https://www.lotterypost.com/news/135957

Comment #19

dpoly1 — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:06:50 GMT

I always play by myself. I never promise to take care of anyone. That does not mean that I won't help some people in my life. Always be careful what you say to anyone. I do know someone that would probably try to be entitled to my winnings if I were to win Powerball. This is an excellent reason that everyone should have the oppourtunity to be anonymous.

Comment #18

BaristaExpress — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:29:21 GMT

Hey Quick Draw Mc Graw,

1) Have you ever thought to sit down and think before opening mouth?

2) I said Agreements are to be Mandatory (and of course in writing) if you wish to be apart of that Pool! Any agreement better be in writing, but any layman would automatically think it would be if so many people are to sign it after paying their money!

I think the kettle calling the pot black is the one who really needs the de-caf before shooting off the mouth uncontrollable

Comment #17

fja — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 12:16:49 GMT

I have to agree with KY on this...If at any time money from winnings was used for future tickets then a claim can be made. If at any time a collection of money was made after the actual drawing, then you have set the rules, and that makes sense to a reasonable person ! The original winners should meet discuss if these claims have ever happened in past drawings and decide whether to fight or add the 4 in, at least some fees will be saved if they choose to settle, If not, and the above claims happ... [ More ]

Comment #16

KY Floyd — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:46:56 GMT

Sparky, have you though about switching to de-caf? There's nothing mandatory about pool agreements. They're certainly a really good idea, but they're not mandatory. Players are free to risk losing a big chunk to lawyers because they weren't clever enough to thoink thisg through. The poster you quoted had if exactly right: the lawsuit is another example of the reason that the agreements *should* be in writing.

Comment #15

KY Floyd — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:39:01 GMT

In this case, I think the plaintiffs may have a good case (which is different than an easily provable case) for partial shares. If they participated in the 12/9 drawing and winnings from that drawing were used to buy tickets for the 12/12 drawing, then they were de facto participants in the 12/12 drawing. The only question would be how much they participated, and how the winnings should be divided.

If all 19 people (the original 15, and the 4 plaintiffs) normally played, each one would own 1

Comment #14

Guru101 — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 08:22:26 GMT

Honestly, I don't think the plaintiffs have a case. The way I see it, you're only included in on a pool if you put in the money for the drawing in question. They didn't for that drawing.

Comment #13

wizeguy — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 08:09:21 GMT

Don't let this happen to you! If you're going to run a pool put the rules in writing covering all the bases. Also, don't roll small winners into future draws.

Comment #12

mayan27 — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:01:43 GMT

From my perspective,i think the four are solely entitle to their shares of winning

for the fact,they stuck it in when they did not win anything.Why cant the money be share evenly amongst them

when whoever the head of their pool never thoght this life changing event was going to occur?

With this economy,their lawyers are going to fight to get 40%

of that pie.

GREED IS A HORRIBLE THING.

Comment #11

markp1950 — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 04:19:33 GMT

Whenever I played in a pool, when I was off, I made sure that my money was in BEFORE I left.

And when I ran a pool, I made sure that all regular players got asked.

Often when I knew that they were regular players, I often kicked in for them. I never had a problem collecting.

MarkP

Comment #10

YeeHaw — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 03:12:47 GMT

This is the reason I've never been in a lottery pool. I feel for the winners. They have to pay the legal

fees.

Comment #9

hobber — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 03:09:16 GMT

I had a good working pool going at my last job. Now that I switched jobs I no longer do it, not because of sharing the prize but because of all the work involved. Before each drawing I would photo copy all the tickets bought by the group, there was twenty of us. I did narrow it down to just six sets of copies. One of the rules was that all small prizes get banked towards a large jackpot such as the one that just played (As it appears they did). Because of that rule there was always money in case... [ More ]

Comment #8

jackpotismine — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 03:08:46 GMT

Let this be a lesson to all who play in a lottery pool!!!! Always have an agreement and always have the names of the people in the pool and the amount paid BEFORE the drawing. I think most people that play in pools never actually think they are going to win.

Comment #7

bambini — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 02:59:59 GMT

The four further claim they joined with the others in a pool for the Dec. 9 Mega Millions drawing from which some cash winnings allegedly were then used to purchase tickets for the Dec. 12 drawing. The co-workers had the winning numbers for the $207 million Dec. 12 drawing.

The four said they were out of the office and unavailable to contribute to the office pool for the Dec. 12 drawing.

Because they participated in the previous draw, I would have included them, to avoid any hassle in obta... [ More ]

Comment #6

MaddMike51 — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 02:26:47 GMT

Lottery pools suck for a variety of reasons.Being sued by jealous people that didn't kick in any money to the pool is just one of the reasons.Having to share a jackpot is another reason.

Comment #5

BaristaExpress — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 02:18:12 GMT

Wrong! Not should be! All Agreements are to be Mandatory for any POOL of any size! The Agreement is to be signed each time you pay/join in the pool! You Pay and then you sign the Mandatory Agreement!

No Pay, No Sign, No Play! End of Story

Comment #4

lottocalgal — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 02:15:38 GMT

I'm with you TSC,

I sometimes think that if I joined a pool with naturally Lucky people, I'd be okay, but I have never done it. Now I'm glad I didn't. This lawsuit is enough proof for me. There will be enough issues with family and friends that will call out of the cracks. The one sister I speak to, doesn't believe in the lottery even though she knows I play religiously and my few friends don't know I play. I still never say that I will help family and friends, so if I didn WHEN I win, it... [ More ]

Comment #3

Litebets27 — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 02:02:39 GMT

Oh boy! Here comes one of the reasons that agreements should be made in writing.

Comment #2

ThatScaryChick — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 02:01:54 GMT

This is one of the major reason I won't join lottery pools. It seems like you have to go through so much hassel if your group wins. I rather just play by myself.

Comment #1

fwlawrence — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 01:52:37 GMT

No surprises here

Piqua lottery winners sued by co-workers

Lottery Post — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 01:48:25 GMT

Four Piqua residents are suing their city co-workers who won the $207 million Mega Millions lottery earlier this month, claiming the winners didn't keep their word about sharing any winnings with all regular players.

And they want $41 million.

A lawsuit claiming breach of contract and conversion was filed Tuesday, Dec. 23, in Miami County Common Pleas Court by Doug Harter, Israel Carnes, Tammy K. Wright and Jon Litchfield, all of Piqua.

Named as defendants are winners: Kenny Kirby, John... [ More ]