Lawsuits against lottery playes

Reply #17

Stack47 — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 03:54:52 GMT

He allegedly added a 3 and apparently convinced the judge to freeze $350,000 of the prize. It doesn't look like the 3 ink was a different color than the rest.

It's possible they are both stupid; she signed the paper giving him $50,000 and he forged it by adding the 3 .

Reply #16

Ron5995 — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:55:26 GMT

If only it was that simple. Signing the back designates a claimant, it doesn't mean they have rights to all the winnings. Office pools are a prime example.

And for instant winner terminal games, which some lotteries offer, a winning ticket may immediately print out of the terminal. In those instances, the player has no opportunity to sign the ticket until the lottery retailer hands it over to them. This is where trust is extra important, because the lottery retailer could claim the ticket was... [ More ]

Reply #15

Shelby Mustang — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:42:55 GMT

If you dont sign the back of the ticket you dont have a case. Yes the retailer can sell all his lottery tickets pre-signed but who the heck would buy them??. The rules are simple you have to produce the winning ticket in person and you have to sign the back period...

Reply #14

KY Floyd — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 06:00:40 GMT

snip straight. Nobody should be allowed to be a lottery retailer unless they're willing to waive their constitutional right to due process. If nothing else, it's a lot easier than making sure that nobody who plays the lottery is a moron.

This post has been automatically changed by the Lottery Post computer system to remove inappropriate content and/or spam.

Reply #13

noise-gate — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 04:05:49 GMT

Stack- l posted this tonight. It makes perfect sense to me, perhaps you could see it the same way... minus my playful banter end piece.

** She admitted to offering him $50,000- this guy added a 3 in front of the 50,000 that is what is being fought about here. Who in their right mind gives a total stranger, in this case a retailer HALF your winnings? His trying to say that it is her pattern to give in 50% sums to total strangers, as though her 4 children don't need it, which is why he sa... [ More ]

Reply #12

Stack47 — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 04:04:00 GMT

However, ironically, this lack of regard for player safety may work to the advantage of lotteries in the long-term -

The first thing I did every time I had prize winner over $600 was sign the back of the ticket. And to get paid I showed ID and my SS number. With my signature on the back of the ticket, I'm the only person who can collect the winnings.

State lotteries put their phone numbers on the back of tickets right under where is says to sign the ticket . Is there better way to tell pl... [ More ]

Reply #11

Stack47 — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 03:53:37 GMT

I don't know all the details and if you know them, share so we're on the same page. There are people posting the store owner is guilty of something with ZERO evidence. Just some basic ordinary everyday speculation.

Whether he broke a law or not is not the issue here- it's about him bringing a case again her when he did not buy the ticket for her.His bad for business.

The only difference between this and a lottery pool is the fact the store owner was part of a two person pool. And the onl... [ More ]

Reply #10

Ron5995 — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 01:49:24 GMT

I've long wondered why lottery agents aren't better regulated. Ticket disputes and other sketchy activity (saying ticket isn't a winner, paying out wrong amount, checking instants ahead of time / tampering with security code, selling instants out of sequence, playing tickets on their own terminal, etc) by retailers is nothing new. It seems by and large, lotteries don't seem overly concerned, and often treat agents accused of abuse with kids gloves.

However, ironically, this lack of regard for... [ More ]

Reply #9

noise-gate — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 14:01:40 GMT

Stack- l think you missing the point.This case is the first of its kind and most people want to see how it ends.l am looking at the larger picture. First off: English is her second language, it may be his as well but India was governed by the British for decades so he darn well knows it to a greater degree, he knew how to get her to sign some agreement indicating that he was savvy enough to pull one on her. Whether he broke a law or not is not the issue here- it's about him bringing a case again... [ More ]

Reply #8

Stack47 — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 05:28:14 GMT

You're missing the point.

Your opinion is just as valuable as all the others saying lotteries should do this and do that , but it's not the lotteries making those determinations. Most legal opinions are based on something resembling fact and there is nothing in that story that story suggesting Laxmi Kant Bhardwaj violated any California Lottery rules.

I would hate to think that this retailer sets a precedence where the rest of the country's lottery players get screwed over because of what... [ More ]

Reply #7

noise-gate — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 03:03:45 GMT

Stack: As always, it's an Opinion.

I don't have Proof that this retailer has broken any State Laws: once again- my opinion. I can live with my Opinion, you can't live with mine especially my take on this retailer but that's okay because this is a discussion forum.

I would hate to think that this retailer sets a precedence where the rest of the country's lottery players get screwed over because of what the law makers in California say was Legal.

If this crapsuit shows up in Kentucky- we... [ More ]

Reply #6

Stack47 — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 02:27:32 GMT

Again it depends on the laws determined by state legislators. Apparently there is no law in California preventing a lottery retailer from entering into a written agreement over ownership of a ticket. Basically you're asking for more laws to protect ignorant people from making terrible decisions.

I want this retailer to end up shutting down his liquor store operation for good.

If you have proof that retailer violated the conditions of being a lottery retailer, turn that into the Californi... [ More ]

Reply #5

Stack47 — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 01:33:32 GMT

You're asking for laws that just apply to lottery players that assumes all lottery retailers are cheats and thieves. Call your state legislators and tell us how you make out.

Reply #4

noise-gate — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 23:14:50 GMT

There is a lawsuit that is going to be interesting to watch and Todd posted the information under Forum News - it's about a retailer suing a player for not $20.00 but $350,000. Who in their right freaking mind gets involved in a lawsuit with someone whose job is STRICTLY to take your Dollars and exchange it with either a scratch off ticket or a lottery ticket? I can somewhat understand if it was a shady guy who wanted to avoid paying child support, but a female entering into an agreement with a... [ More ]

Reply #3

cbr$ — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 21:49:01 GMT

to a point . More such be added to that law. The retailer got a check for selling the winning ticket. In all fairness, We always tell people to sign the back. If the agreement was really made at time of purchase, the retailer name such sign it before the person leaves the store that way both parties are protected. Before it is declare a winner. Plus a claws if you the retailer should decide to sue a consumer later and not show up to claim your share together then, with that buyer then bring proo... [ More ]

Reply #2

dognabit — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 21:11:51 GMT

If I ever won a big prize , I would counter sue anyone that tried to file a frivolous lawsuit against me. Take no quarter, show no mercy.

Reply #1

Scratch$ — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 21:02:29 GMT

No lottery retailer should be able to claim any prize, nor receive any part of one. Period

Lawsuits against lottery playes

dannyboyhouston — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 20:19:35 GMT

I have recently scent an email to the Texas State Lottery Commission in regards to retailers suing customers over their winning tickets. It is up to all players to get their states to enact laws that would protect the consumer who won a lottery from any retailer.