Canada couple loses out on $1.64M jackpot

Comment #31

haymaker — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 01:15:46 GMT

also i wonder did the ppl. that gave the $100,000 have to pay a gift tax

Comment #30

rdgrnr — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 06:59:30 GMT

Methinks he doth protest too much (about lottery pools).

Comment #29

rdgrnr — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 06:58:18 GMT

Hmmm...

Comment #28

rdgrnr — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 06:57:37 GMT

Hmmm...

Comment #27

rdgrnr — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 06:52:22 GMT

I smell little mario the moron with a new twist.

Comment #26

Trillionaire — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 06:40:12 GMT

Quite a number of false claims were filed recently here in Canada which makes it even more important to stay out of pools.

Comment #25

haymaker — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:48:12 GMT

a mans word is his bond heard it a million times growing up. now if you say it for whatever reason the other party says OK let's get the legal paperwork squared away. like you did't even say it.

Comment #24

RJOh — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:23:14 GMT

Matthew Hayduk, an Edmonton man had go to court before getting his $33 million lottery jackpot and he wasn't in a pool. It seems in Canada anyone can file a claim for the lottery jackpot even if they had no part in buying the winning ticket.

https://www.lotterypost.com/news/233181

Comment #23

Trillionaire — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:52:24 GMT

This is why I dislike lottery pools. I'm in a pool with my wife and that's it.

Comment #22

RJOh — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:15:06 GMT

In your case the group had a fixed membership and the player planned to return as soon as his health permitted.

However as was pointed out in this story and others when the Clancys joined the pool four years earlier they made an agreement with a core(fixed) group of six players one who had since moved on as had the Clancys with no plans of returning. The group that won the jackpot consisted of 21 players of which sixteen had never agreed to pay for the Clancys who weren't even in the group th... [ More ]

Comment #21

rdgrnr — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:44:02 GMT

That's the way it works with good people with compassion, integrity, principles and values, Nick.

But it seems when it comes to money, those traits go out the window many times in today's world.

This if it feels good, do it lifestyle that the libs have foisted upon us over the last 50 years is eating at the fabric and backbone of this country like a cancer.

A man's word used to be his bond. Not any more.

Now it doesn't mean anything to anybody who grew up under the agenda of today's... [ More ]

Comment #20

Slick Nick — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:08:53 GMT

I agree with Ridgerunner regarding this particular case. I run a few lottery pools. My rule is, you don't pay,you don't play. But I would like to share an expeierence regarding one of my pools. One of my loyal players had a heart attack and was out of work briefly. Myself and another player covered him. When he got back on his feet he paid us back.

Comment #19

RJOh — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 16:42:40 GMT

That's what happens when peoples who can't prove they ever brought a ticket are allowed to file a claim for the winnings.

Comment #18

rdgrnr — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 14:04:38 GMT

Seems like Canada has more than their share of trouble with lottery pools for some reason.

Seems like there's always some controversy and trouble getting your money if you win.

Strange.

Comment #17

RJOh — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 21:50:17 GMT

Some people get some funny ideas about what they are entitled to after having participated in a lottery pool. I remember some years ago a group of Cleveland factory workers won the Ohio lottery and even though every one contributed the same amount some of the older members thought the younger members should give half their share to the older members to make up for what they lost playing before they joined. They younger members had to go to court to an equal share of the winnings. The Clancys not... [ More ]

Comment #16

dr65 — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 19:31:11 GMT

It was nice but certainly not necessary for the guy who gave them $100,000 to do that. I wonder if that decision was made after a few court

dates or when the guy got his check. I only say that because I'm just wondering about the level of entitlement the couple felt and how many of

the other players they approached with the same plan and at what point.

Obviously they filed the suit but really, deep down, I wonder if they ever felt that since they didn't play or pay that day they weren't... [ More ]

Comment #15

RJOh — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:48:49 GMT

Seeing how the paying pool members will only get $952K after not splitting with the Clancys who expected to get $1.65M, they must have been expecting to get two shares as if they both had paid into the pool. That seems both stupid and greedy if neither was contributing to the pool.

Comment #14

KY Floyd — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:12:09 GMT

Did we read the same article? Here's what it said in the one I read:

While the Clancys regularly contributed when jackpots exceeded $10 million, they had stopped going to the club and weren't present when money was collected for the Nov. 23, 2007, draw.

They were contributing to the cost of tickets, but didn't pay ahead of time for that particular drawing. If they weren't there when money was collected for previous drawings but contibuted their share for (losing) tickets after the fact I... [ More ]

Comment #13

ttech10 — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:01:10 GMT

I had missed that line where they stopped going, and so before reading this I was feeling bad for them.

But, since it doesn't look like it was that they simply missed putting in their money for one draw (which I assumed), I don't really feel sorry for them not getting a share of the winnings. Seriously, if you leave a pool/club and then expect to be brought back in for that one draw that won, you need to get a slapping to bring you back to reality.

Comment #12

CashWinner$ — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 06:53:42 GMT

Wow - More nutty plaintiffs!

A never ending stream of entertainment.

Comment #11

larry3100 — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 02:00:30 GMT

Right on Ridge. I hear about it on occasion I was in that lottery pool too! You don't pay,you don't play!.

Comment #10

haymaker — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 00:09:43 GMT

agree w/ the judge's dicision, but don't like her attitude,she said the 21 participants did't earn the money,well maybe they did't use hammers, shovels trucks,but they used their $ earned somehow and risked them on this game, the plantiff did not.i went fishing on party boat today where everyone on board has the option of joining the betting pool, $5 ea. the guy next to me declined,he caught the biggest doormat ,the angler w/ 2nd biggest flattie won the pool.

Comment #9

RJOh — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 22:50:53 GMT

I doubt if their friends would have signed an agreement like the one they thought they had, that is split their future lottery winnings with them even though they contribute nothing to the cost of tickets.

Comment #8

maringoman — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:55:40 GMT

I agree with the judge and the members of this forum. Justice was served.

It makes me upset that the winning group had to incur attorney fees defending

what was clearly their money. This case should have been thrown out at hearing

Comment #7

joker17 — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:00:05 GMT

I've seen enough episodes of People's Court, Judge Judy and others to know better...Written agreement...PERIOD

Comment #6

faber98 — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:56:05 GMT

this never should have seen a courtroom. they are being unfair to the people who paid by contesting this. stay out of pools. this happens too often when the group takes one down. which isn't often but there always seems to be a problem when a group hits.

Comment #5

dallascowboyfan — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:39:36 GMT

Comment #4

sully16 — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:17:22 GMT

No pay , no win.

Comment #3

RJOh — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:11:09 GMT

If Michael and Catherine Clancy had continued to reimburse their friends as they continue to play the lottery and won nothing then they might have had a case. How anyone could think their friends would ensure that they would be in the pool every time without any expectations of reimbursements is beyond me. Their story is not sad but stupid and stupid doesn't pay.

Comment #2

B$Rizzle — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:58:48 GMT

I AGREE...Bottom line, if you pay to play, then you get a share if the pool wins. If you miss a couple draws, then you are OUT for those draws.

I'm sorry but when I was running a pool I told everyone I will not spot you for the draw, if you want to participate I need the $$ by this date/time

If they wanted to participat that bad, they should have made a special trip to the person collenting the money to drop off cash. I had people do this on several occasions. I even allowed som... [ More ]

Comment #1

rdgrnr — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:42:28 GMT

They had stopped going to the club and still expected somebody to cover for them in the pool?

Nah, I don't think so.

They didn't deserve a nickel in my opinion. They're very lucky that one guy gave them 100 grand cuz they definitely didn't deserve it.

Just another example of why I don't like pools; I wonder how much the lawyers grabbed on this deal

Canada couple loses out on $1.64M jackpot

Lottery Post — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:35:52 GMT

Judge's ruling ends an Alberta couple's bid for a share of a 2007 Super 7 lottery jackpot

Relying on their friends to ensure they were covered for a lottery pool has cost an Alberta, Canada, couple $1.64 million, a judge has ruled.

In a written decision released Wednesday, Justice Suzanne Bensler said Michael and Catherine Clancy of Okotoks, Alta., weren't entitled to a percentage of a Nov. 23, 2007, $20 million jackpot.

The plaintiffs' story is sad, Bensler said, in concluding the 21... [ More ]