Jury: Lottery winner must pay ex-boyfriend part of winnings

Comment #38

HaveABall — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:14:09 GMT

I can certainly see your point of view, ressuccess. Because this judgement amount indicates that this boyfriend [whom she longggg enabled as a moocher and essentially non-sharer] received more money (tax free) than she did; after she already paid all of the taxes on it.

Ah, well ... perhaps this was another win that the lottery gods planned knowing full well what would happen and deeming it would be uniquely entertaining to observe.

Comment #37

CARBOB — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 13:43:32 GMT

Are you implying that your word means nothing? How old are you? Do you realize, many deals were done with handshakes. Many years ago, when there was more honesty, in this world.

Comment #36

KY Floyd — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 04:53:54 GMT

The majority of posts here are based on the almost complete ignorance the posters have as a result of reading this one article. It's possible that the jurors got it wrong, but they made their decision based on far more knowledge than the posters whining about the decision.

Comment #35

pickone4me — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 21:44:38 GMT

He is a user So it is ok for the female to do it, but not the male, got it. So much for that equality women are always complaining about, the outcome of this case is what equality is all about.

Comment #34

cbr$ — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 18:15:38 GMT

These jurors take a vote in the first 15 minute say she should pay him. Used the 3 hours 15 minute hashing out how much. Well he don't sound like the type who know how to keep it, so we can expected him to be in the market for another easy prey female to take of him. He is a user

Comment #33

ekem6078 — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:15:54 GMT

If they did'nt have it in writing it's VOID in my book. She said, we'll spilt if one of us hit it big That wouldn't fly with me. If I was on the juior, I'll tell the moocher to go get him a JOB.

Comment #32

bgman59 — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 04:25:39 GMT

California also has this same type of law, so for the past 10 years, when someone says, Hey,if you win you'er gonna split it with me right, I always say NO. and I say No to everyone, just so it gets out there, oh yeah, he always says No, they can call me greedy or whatever, I have won small jackpots and people know my position. Also, I dont tell anyone except my wife when I win small jackpots, found out the hard way, money makes people go crazy. I wish you all good luck in the lottery.

Comment #31

One-Day — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 01:50:15 GMT

Don't kill yourself trying to figure out this one. I'm sure there is more to this story. I'm sure there are more juicy details that made this judgement fair.

Comment #30

OneTrickpony — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 01:03:31 GMT

Gold Digger: See Kanye West, 2005. LOL

Comment #29

rcbbuckeye — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 01:00:45 GMT

moochette.

Comment #28

pickone4me — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 22:50:45 GMT

Lots of sour grapes here now that the gender roles are reversed. Edit: I see the man being called a mooch by a lot of people, what were the woman that sued like this then

Comment #27

ressuccess — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 19:31:42 GMT

I didn't know why the former middle middle school teacher had to pay up $291,000 to her former sweetheart.

Comment #26

rundown99 — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 17:43:14 GMT

Another reason why lottery winners should only play in states where they can remain anonymous.

Comment #25

zephbe — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 13:17:57 GMT

The two fell in love in 1991. She hired him to make improvements to her Geneva farmhouse then let him move in and live rent free. She had him evicted in 2009, two years after she won the jackpot and one year after he sued her, demanding half of her winnings.

He/she bought the ticket in 2007. He sued her in 2008. She evicted him in 2009. He said he gave her the money to buy the ticket. Maybe the jurors took into consideration the value of the car he won but did not share with her.

1991 to

Comment #24

jacintasc — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 12:35:43 GMT

I could say alot. So all I will say is Ridiculous!

This goes against the lottery's own rules. She could win on appeal

Comment #23

Candy-Lane — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 01:17:18 GMT

The jury was clearly wrong! How dumb can they be? The guy was engaged to someone else therefore, negating any agreements they may have had while they were together.

For example, while together, they may have agreed to have sex at least 5 times a week for the rest of their lives. Now that they have broken up, according to the jury's reasoning, they would have to continue meeting up.

The woman needs to appeal! I bet with any other jury, her former boyfriend wouldn't get a dime

Comment #22

OneTrickpony — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 22:59:09 GMT

Exactly CrazyJaney. My mother has a saying too. No one takes advantage of you, that YOU don't let them .

My other favorite saying that applies in this case is from Sophia on the Golden Girls:

There is only two reasons a man will marry a woman after a certain age... Nurse or Purse .

Comment #21

crazyjaney — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 22:45:54 GMT

I can't take credit for this my smart mom can... I told her this story and her response Janey who is the idiot here? This fella was a mooch and whatever but this woman allowed him to A good cautionary tale

Lol.

Comment #20

crazyjaney — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 22:42:46 GMT

I was wondering that too. I stand by my original assertion that this fella was a mooch.

Comment #19

crazyjaney — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 22:41:02 GMT

Good point re office pools. Another reason to avoid them. Too many potential

legal issues there.

Comment #18

Gleno — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 22:39:54 GMT

If she is officially an ex- bed partner why should she collect after 4 years of separation?

Just Asking

Comment #17

Groppo — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 22:22:59 GMT

.

TO ALL LOTTO PLAYERS:

Be careful of what you promise other people, especially regarding your lotto prizes. Never make a promise to someone else, and state anything in an email, paper or anything like that, unless you put definite restrictions on it.

And don't loan a SINGLE DOGGONE PENNY to anyone else, without a signed contract of some sort. Unless of course, it's for cab fare, and you don't want to keep Achmed, the cabby waiting, while you and the little woman go through the mone... [ More ]

Comment #16

dallascowboyfan — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 22:18:35 GMT

Wow so does that mean he has to split his car that he won

Comment #15

savagegoose — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 21:00:35 GMT

you would need to then get everyone to sign an agreement to dissolve the agreement! or date the agreement, for 1 calendar month. and continuously resign it. I guess thats where office pools go wrong. they need to actually be a contract for one draw only. and any winnings from that draw are only to be spent on tickets with claims to that original contractees, the following draw a new contract, just for that draw needs to be filed and the previous winnings plays no part in the following contract.

Comment #14

travelintrucker — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 21:00:11 GMT

I doubt any jury in their right mind would award money to a person whom came out of the woodwork after 15 years and said we had a verbal agreement. That's got shake down written all over it. However, in this case, I think the chick was lying. Why would you get a lottery tax document sent to your former address if you moved out years prior to the win. Sounds fishy to me. I address I stay at is different from the address on my CDL. I make sure that all my important mail comes to my living address.... [ More ]

Comment #13

TheMeatman2005 — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 20:53:50 GMT

He was still living in her home, but she was engaged to another man and he was seeing a 7-eleven clerk.

Comment #12

travelintrucker — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 20:50:38 GMT

Was the ticket bough while they were together or after the split

Comment #11

TheMeatman2005 — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 20:47:33 GMT

I guess so

This may sound funny, but I would suggest that anytime you make an oral agreement, take the time to put it down in writing and get all interested parties to sign it,

It no longer becomes an oral agreement, but at least it won't be he said / she said.

Comment #10

savagegoose — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 20:42:51 GMT

well meat man, it is prob a good idea to mention it. i mean verbal agreements do seem to have a standing in court now.

Comment #9

TheMeatman2005 — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 20:40:46 GMT

So...they had a verbal agreement to split any proceeds from a lottery win. Probably they did, when the romance was young. But, now that they split up, do they have to have an end of verbal agreement?

You know like....Remember we had that agreement to split any lottery or other wins....well now that we're splitting up, that agreement is over too

Comment #8

savagegoose — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 20:26:20 GMT

I believe at one point they did have an agreement to split, maybe when the romance was young. but over the years of one person buying all the tickets, and the other mooching free rent, although with house repairs as a sort of payment, I can see why the split wouldnt seem fair. no idea where the truth lies in this. some where in the middle i would guess. personally as juror, i would have awarded $20k on the off chance the moocher had any real validity in his claim.

I bet if you asked the store... [ More ]

Comment #7

crazyjaney — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 20:03:17 GMT

I totally agree but I can't believe I am

about to defend an attorney but the

blame truly lies with the idiot jurors... Likely a case of jackpot envy. And the poorer jurors wamted

to punish the winner. I'm just saying. I don't entirely trust the jury of your peers

concept either since people have biases and prejudices that can't always be ascertained and most people of a lower socioeconomic status would have a bias or a dislike against rich people ( especially those who won money). I... [ More ]

Comment #6

crazyjaney — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 19:58:32 GMT

That's correct. Oral agreements mean diddly squat. I'm annoyed but I'm not surprised by this jury. Total case of jackpot envy . Oh she won so she MUST share. What nonsense. That was her ticket not his. And dollars to

donuts this fella is a total mooch anyways and that is part of the reason why they broke up. He didn't share his winnings with her. Moron jurors.

Comment #5

crazyjaney — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 19:55:11 GMT

Not the way I hoped this case would turn out.

This opens the door for all kinds of these he said she said or what have you And turning this matter over to a jury likely jealous of the winner and wanting to punish them- well look at how well this turned out for this gal

Definately play solo. No oral agreements . Heck don't even tell

people you play lest you get into this mess. Frivolous lawsuits are a real

problem. Too bad in this case the frivolous person won.

Comment #4

noise-gate — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 19:35:48 GMT

That is why it pays to play SOLO.

Even if you in a relationship with someone, under NO circumstances should you bring up the topic of join me in a lottery pool for two unless you dead certain that this person is the one you want to spend the rest of your life with.If you don't share a checking account with your gf/ bf at present- there is No us when it comes to money, especially lottery wins. This woman got screwed by this jury.

Comment #3

sookie — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 19:00:13 GMT

This isn't good. People will show up out of no where and say hey 15 years ago we had an agreement to split the winnings!

If it's not in writing, it's not valid. Anyone can claim they made an agreement. I also used to get comments like that too. People would see or hear I play and say omg you'll remember your best friend right!

They get disappointed when I explain that no I won't be sharing it. I've had clerks make comments hey you gonna share that? To which I say no. People are always tak... [ More ]

Comment #2

OneTrickpony — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 18:46:50 GMT

Oh great. Now anyone who even THINKS that they have an oral agreement with a lottery winner will be suing for half of their winnings. Like these jerk store employees who constantly say to everyone buying tickets Now if you win, you are splitting this with me, right? This woman must have an idiot for an attorney, as it isn't even mentioned that this jerk won a brand new car and didn't sell it and split to proceeds with HER. I don't understand how they can award him $291k, and then his lawyer has... [ More ]

Comment #1

larry3100 — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 18:44:09 GMT

It's another He said, she said case. There's got to be a law in state lotteries that would not allow oral agreements. If Howard had signed that winning ticket with Lynn at the time of that lottery ticket purchase, there would be no lawsuit and Lynn would have had to share the winnings with Howard.

Jury: Lottery winner must pay ex-boyfriend part of winnings

Lottery Post — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 17:55:16 GMT

A jury Thursday ruled that a former middle school teacher who won a $1 million lottery jackpot must pay $291,000 to her former sweetheart, who testified that he handed her the money to buy the winning ticket.

Lynn Poirier, 62, claimed the prize in 2007. Her live-in boyfriend, Howard Browning, 62, sued her a few months later, claiming they had a long-standing agreement: If one of them won a major lottery prize, they'd split it 50-50.

But Poirier gave jurors a very different version of event... [ More ]