Lottery winner doesn't have to share

Comment #15

tiggs95 — Sat, 15 May 2010 02:30:38 GMT

ridge admit it pal they was to much for you to handle..It's ok tiggs has his bad days too....Oh the good old days..

Comment #14

rdgrnr — Sat, 15 May 2010 02:18:03 GMT

I just didn't feel the love connection tiggs. The numbers just weren't right. High age/low jackpot relationships never work out for some reason.

Comment #13

tiggs95 — Sat, 15 May 2010 02:00:32 GMT

ridge tiggs is surprised you haven't hit on on of those 84 year olds..Or maybe you have and are to ashamed to tell..Or maybe they turned you down..hahaha..Yeah that's it you got tuned down by some 84 year oldly...

Comment #12

ca-dreamin* — Fri, 14 May 2010 00:38:10 GMT

I agree

Comment #11

truecritic — Thu, 13 May 2010 17:16:42 GMT

Interesting to go back to the original article and read the responses there and here of the same LP members.

Sisters' lottery jackpot trial begins today - Lottery News:

https://www.lotterypost.com/news/211139

Comment #10

charmed7 — Thu, 13 May 2010 16:01:22 GMT

Its a shame 2 sisters would have to do that, and n there 80's WOW.

I wonder why she didn't think her sister wouldn't give her some?

GREED, oh well she doesn't have to share anyway

Comment #9

txwnr — Thu, 13 May 2010 15:58:25 GMT

What I don't see mentioned here that I did see in other news, is that the sister that brought the lawsuit TORE the contract up after an earlier dispute and ceased playing with her sister. That makes it very clear to me that the winning sister didn't have to share her prize since this sister ended the agreement earlier and now is only suing since the other one won big.

Comment #8

konane — Thu, 13 May 2010 15:02:42 GMT

KY Floyd you must be a retired attorney or judge or at the very least a paralegal. Have read some of your opinions over time and came to that conclusion long ago. Thank you for your opinions, you've dispelled lots of confusion

Comment #7

Grovel — Thu, 13 May 2010 12:33:08 GMT

Just because you sign something does not make it a legal enforcable document. I could sign a document saying I would split my Jackpot with everyone on LP if I won. Doesn't mean you could enforce it if I actually won watch.

I hearby promise to split my jackpot with everyone on LP if I win the lottery.

Marcus Baker.

Good luck taking that to court.

Comment #6

dr65 — Thu, 13 May 2010 10:56:51 GMT

I am happy to see she didn't have to split the winnings with her sister. I think anger and envy played a big part in her attempt to get her share.

It is terrible what money does to some people, it really wasn't that much and with legal fees is probably a lot less.

Comment #5

KY Floyd — Thu, 13 May 2010 06:13:30 GMT

Fortunately the judge had more to work with than logic. The judge also had an understanding of contract law and the ability to recognize that a mortgage between a borrower and a lender is substantially different than an agreement between friends or relatives to share something equally.

Your mortgage is an agreement to repay money the bank already gave you, and it includes very specific terms detailing when your contractual obligation ends. While there would be other details, the main provisio... [ More ]

Comment #4

RJOh — Thu, 13 May 2010 04:09:14 GMT

In an earlier LP news stories about this case it was said she and her brother bought the ticket so she had already split it with him which meant she started out with only $250K. That's one of the problem when you allow family or friends to think they are entitled to half your stuff regardless of the situation.

Comment #3

CAL-LottoPlayer — Thu, 13 May 2010 03:44:51 GMT

An elderly Connecticut woman does not have to share her half of a$500,000 lottery windfall with her sister who sued her over it, a judgeruled Wednesday.

The part the story left out was the lawyers ended up with most of the money (after taxes) since they charge $300/hour.

Seriously, think about it. A $500K jackpot is $325K after taxes (35% federal). If the case went on since 2005, that's 5 years. There are 2,080 working hours in a year! Let's estimate the lawyers charged 110 hours per yea... [ More ]

Comment #2

HaveABall — Thu, 13 May 2010 00:13:56 GMT

Sokaitis argued they had signed a notarized contract a decade earlier to split all gambling profits. But Bakaysa maintained that the deal ended in 2004 during a spat over a few hundred dollars. New Britain Superior Court Judge Cynthia Swienton agreed with Bakaysa, ruling that the contract ended during the argument.

Oh, goodie, by this odd judge's logic, it means that the notarized contract that I have with my mortgage holder ends if I get in any type of argument with them -- I'll no longer h... [ More ]

Comment #1

rdgrnr — Thu, 13 May 2010 00:10:24 GMT

There has to be a little bit more to it than the AP account.

Most likely that the argument led the plaintiff to stop contributing to the purchase of the community tickets in which case I would agree with the ruling.

Otherwise, I don't understand how an argument could render a signed and notarized contract null and void.

It's a shame that money can cause a rift like this between two sisters at that age.

Lottery winner doesn't have to share

Lottery Post — Wed, 12 May 2010 23:40:51 GMT

Judge: Woman, 87, doesn't have to split windfall with sister

An elderly Connecticut woman does not have to share her half of a $500,000 lottery windfall with her sister who sued her over it, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Eighty-seven-year-old Rose Bakaysa and her 84-year-old sister, Theresa Sokaitis, have been fighting over the money in court since 2005. That was shortly after Bakaysa and their brother won the Powerball jackpot.

Sokaitis argued they had signed a notarized contract a decade e... [ More ]