Million-dollar ticket fight goes before Mass. Lottery board

Nov 30, 2005, 12:03 pm (22 comments)

Massachusetts Lottery

In the opening round of what may be a lengthy legal battle, an 83-year-old local man who found a winning Massachusetts lottery ticket in a trash bin defended his right to the $1 million prize yesterday, fending off a rival claim.

The hearing, at the headquarters of the Massachusetts Lottery Commission in Braintree, was largely an exercise in legal technicalities.

The commission said earlier this month is had already rejected a counterclaim on a ticket found by Edward St. John in a trash bin at the White Hen Pantry. At the same time, however, the commission said it wouldn't pay St. John until the still-anonymous man challenging St. John's ownership of the ticket exhausted all his avenues of appeal within the agency.

"This is just another part of the process," said Beth Bresnahan, a spokeswoman for the lottery. "It's a part of due process."

Grace Lee, general counsel to state Treasurer Timothy Cahill, served as the officer in charge of the hearing and is expected to make a decision in about six weeks. Lee asked both sides to issue written summaries of their arguments in the meantime, said Bresnahan.

Sometimes mistaken for a homeless person, St. John lives near the White Hen Pantry and is regularly seen sifting through the trash at the Main Street convenience store. Some time ago, St. John found a discarded $1,000 winner among the throwaways, but his trash-picking pastime really turned golden last month when he lifted a $1 million winner from the waste bin inside the store. The ticket was one of the lottery's $10 Million Hold 'Em Poker "instant" games.

Despite requests for interviews from "The Tonight Show," "Good Morning America" and other national spotlights, St. John has steadfastly avoided publicity, saying he doesn't want to be bothered.

Shortly after St. John's trash-to-treasure story became public, Dan Doyle, a Blackstone lawyer, confirmed he represents another local man who claims to be the rightful owner of the

ticket. Doyle told The Call previously that his client, whom he declined to identify, "misplaced" the ticket in the trash can before St. John discovered it.

Yesterday, the lottery continued to withhold the identity of the rival claimant, saying it is doing so to honor his request for anonymity. Moreover, the person did not attend the hearing, but was represented by Doyle, in a solo appearance before the hearing officer.

According to Bresnahan, Doyle did not offer testimony from any witnesses to corroborate his story, but introduced video footage purporting to show his client purchasing the winning ticket.

"He presented footage from the store's security camera, but there was nothing conclusive," she said.

Doyle, who could not be reached for comment, said previously that his client purchased about $600 worth of lottery tickets at the White Hen Pantry on the day of St. John's discovery. After scratching a telltale "key code" on the tickets, his client began sorting through the winners without actually revealing the payoff amounts.

Doyle had said his client mistakenly placed the winning ticket in a pile with the losers, which he discarded.

Workers in the store have since come forward to dispute Doyle's remarks about what happened next. Doyle claimed St. John was in the store watching his client sort the tickets and, after fishing it from the trash bin, was advised against cashing it by a clerk because he wasn't the purchaser, but the workers say that is inaccurate.

St. John did not come into the store until several hours after the original buyer discarded the ticket, and he was never advised against cashing the ticket, according to workers.

St. John did not have a lawyer to speak for him during yesterday's hearing, but he was with "family members and friends," Bresnahan said.

St. John is entitled to the winnings, the lottery has said, because lottery tickets are "bearer instruments," payable to whoever possesses and signs the back of them. St. John meets all the requirements, according to the lottery.

If, as expected, the lottery formally rejects the rival claim, the decision can be appealed to Worcester Superior Court. Although it is apparently the commission's intention to pay St. John after a decision is rendered in yesterday's administrative hearing, it is possible the court could grant an order barring it from doing so, pending further hearings, lottery officials say.

The Call

Comments

DoubleDown

Finders Keepers !!

Yes Indeed it is a bearer instrument-

Too bad for the person that"misplaced" the ticket in the trash can .

I guess he "misplaced" it in the trash can like I just did with my subway sandwich wrapper .

bellyache's avatarbellyache

I really hope St. John gets to keep the ticket. This has been an interesting saga. I hope we continue to hear whats going on with this case.

CASH Only

Mr St John should focus on suing to collect his prize in lump-sum, as it was an annuity-only ticket. He is 83 years old. Do you remember 94 (at the time)-yo Louise Outing?

Bradly_60's avatarBradly_60

Really...I don't see how you can manage to throw away a million dollar winner.  He obviously was just scratching the letters to see if it was a winner, say that the numbers didn't mean anything (large prizes don't have any specific letters corresponding to the prize.  In Michigan anything over $25 doesn't have set letters.)  He threw it away, hes the dumb ass, and now he bought a million dollars for someone else.

Brad

jeffrey's avatarjeffrey

When will the courts understand the phrase "Bearer Instrument"? These cases should be treated as frivolous and dismissed. What a waste of time and money.

Finders keepers losers weepers.

Congrats to you Mr. St. John.

Doyle, your parents should be proud, hats off to your mother and her brother.

DoubleDown

Mr St John should focus on suing to collect his prize in lump-sum, as it was an annuity-only ticket. He is 83 years old. Do you remember 94 (at the time)-yo Louise Outing?

I agree- but I bet that if the game was an annuity game, it will be tough to get them to change the payout.

He will be forced to live until he is 108 to see it all- a damn shame.

hsvscubaski

He can sell the annuity for cash.  Won't get top dollar butstill most of it.

BabyJC's avatarBabyJC

Given the circumstances, the lottery should not withhold payment to St. John!

JAP69's avatarJAP69

St. John is entitled to the winnings, the lottery has said, because lottery tickets are "bearer instruments," payable to whoever possesses and signs the back of them. St. John meets all the requirements, according to the lottery.

That says it all about ownership of a ticket. Unless it was stolen from you and you can prove it

KY Floyd's avatarKY Floyd

When will the courts understand the phrase "Bearer Instrument"? These cases should be treated as frivolous and dismissed. What a waste of time and money.

Finders keepers losers weepers.

Congrats to you Mr. St. John.

Doyle, your parents should be proud, hats off to your mother and her brother.

"Bearer instrument" just means that the issuer doesn't keep a record of the owner or any changes in ownership, but does nothing to prove that the person in possession is actually the owner. The role of the court is to decide who the rightful owner is in the case of a dispute. Deliberately discarding property means you've willfully relinquished ownership, but if you lose something you still own it for a period of time defined by law, and the law also spells out the procedure for the finder to become the lawful owner. That's why the lawyer says the ticket was "misplaced". If he can demonstrate that the ticket was lost rather than discarded then his client still owns the ticket.

If you found an expensive bracelet in a garbage can it would be a reasonable assumption that it wasn't deliberately discarded. It's also a reasonable assumption that anybody who loses track of a ticket that they know is worth a million dollars and throws it in the trash with the losing tickets is exceedingly stupid. It seems to me that only revealing a code that doesn't obviously indicate that the ticket is a winner demonstrates that the client wouldn't have known it was a winner and therefore discarded it deliberately, but maybe the guy really os that stupid. That doesn't make his claim frivolous, it just makes it very hard to prove.

 

 

DoubleDown

When will the courts understand the phrase "Bearer Instrument"? These cases should be treated as frivolous and dismissed. What a waste of time and money.

Finders keepers losers weepers.

Congrats to you Mr. St. John.

Doyle, your parents should be proud, hats off to your mother and her brother.

"Bearer instrument" just means that the issuer doesn't keep a record of the owner or any changes in ownership, but does nothing to prove that the person in possession is actually the owner. The role of the court is to decide who the rightful owner is in the case of a dispute. Deliberately discarding property means you've willfully relinquished ownership, but if you lose something you still own it for a period of time defined by law, and the law also spells out the procedure for the finder to become the lawful owner. That's why the lawyer says the ticket was "misplaced". If he can demonstrate that the ticket was lost rather than discarded then his client still owns the ticket.

If you found an expensive bracelet in a garbage can it would be a reasonable assumption that it wasn't deliberately discarded. It's also a reasonable assumption that anybody who loses track of a ticket that they know is worth a million dollars and throws it in the trash with the losing tickets is exceedingly stupid. It seems to me that only revealing a code that doesn't obviously indicate that the ticket is a winner demonstrates that the client wouldn't have known it was a winner and therefore discarded it deliberately, but maybe the guy really os that stupid. That doesn't make his claim frivolous, it just makes it very hard to prove.

 

 

ThudWhat the ???

RJOh's avatarRJOh

When will the courts understand the phrase "Bearer Instrument"? These cases should be treated as frivolous and dismissed. What a waste of time and money.

Finders keepers losers weepers.

Congrats to you Mr. St. John.

Doyle, your parents should be proud, hats off to your mother and her brother.

"Bearer instrument" just means that the issuer doesn't keep a record of the owner or any changes in ownership, but does nothing to prove that the person in possession is actually the owner. The role of the court is to decide who the rightful owner is in the case of a dispute. Deliberately discarding property means you've willfully relinquished ownership, but if you lose something you still own it for a period of time defined by law, and the law also spells out the procedure for the finder to become the lawful owner. That's why the lawyer says the ticket was "misplaced". If he can demonstrate that the ticket was lost rather than discarded then his client still owns the ticket.

If you found an expensive bracelet in a garbage can it would be a reasonable assumption that it wasn't deliberately discarded. It's also a reasonable assumption that anybody who loses track of a ticket that they know is worth a million dollars and throws it in the trash with the losing tickets is exceedingly stupid. It seems to me that only revealing a code that doesn't obviously indicate that the ticket is a winner demonstrates that the client wouldn't have known it was a winner and therefore discarded it deliberately, but maybe the guy really os that stupid. That doesn't make his claim frivolous, it just makes it very hard to prove.

 

 

If Doyle's argument works for his anonymous client, then it will work for anyone who can prove they were in the White Hen Pantry that day.  Some of Doyle's remarks have been disputed by some of the store's workers and once someone start making up part of a story, the whole story becomes doubtful.

JAP69's avatarJAP69


Dumpster diving rule number 1
If it's in the dumpster it's fair game

four4me

bearer instrument

Definition

A negotiable instrument which is payable on demand to the holder, regardless of whom it was originally issued to.

bellyache's avatarbellyache

Mr St John should focus on suing to collect his prize in lump-sum, as it was an annuity-only ticket. He is 83 years old. Do you remember 94 (at the time)-yo Louise Outing?

CASH, Mr. St John isn't suing anyone...he is the one being sued. He probably is just hoping he wins the case so he can collect he money.

jeffrey's avatarjeffrey

bearer instrument

Definition

A negotiable instrument which is payable on demand to the holder, regardless of whom it was originally issued to.


Exactly, I wish the lawyers who read this site would get definitions straight. Prior ownership is not an issue of a bearer instrument. However, anyone can be sued in this country for anything. God bless America, I hope it survives.

jeffrey's avatarjeffrey

When will the courts understand the phrase "Bearer Instrument"? These cases should be treated as frivolous and dismissed. What a waste of time and money.

Finders keepers losers weepers.

Congrats to you Mr. St. John.

Doyle, your parents should be proud, hats off to your mother and her brother.

"Bearer instrument" just means that the issuer doesn't keep a record of the owner or any changes in ownership, but does nothing to prove that the person in possession is actually the owner. The role of the court is to decide who the rightful owner is in the case of a dispute. Deliberately discarding property means you've willfully relinquished ownership, but if you lose something you still own it for a period of time defined by law, and the law also spells out the procedure for the finder to become the lawful owner. That's why the lawyer says the ticket was "misplaced". If he can demonstrate that the ticket was lost rather than discarded then his client still owns the ticket.

If you found an expensive bracelet in a garbage can it would be a reasonable assumption that it wasn't deliberately discarded. It's also a reasonable assumption that anybody who loses track of a ticket that they know is worth a million dollars and throws it in the trash with the losing tickets is exceedingly stupid. It seems to me that only revealing a code that doesn't obviously indicate that the ticket is a winner demonstrates that the client wouldn't have known it was a winner and therefore discarded it deliberately, but maybe the guy really os that stupid. That doesn't make his claim frivolous, it just makes it very hard to prove.

 

 

I think you missed the point of Bearer Instrument. Payment upon request with the relinquishment of the instrument. Case closed. You can be sued for anything. I wish someone would dump some bearer bonds in the trash for me to find.

DIAMOND RAY's avatarDIAMOND RAY

I occasionally pick up disgarded tickets and have won with a few. Lets face it the purpose of playing the lottery is to win if  you buy a ticket and don't make sure it's a winner or not  than you don't need to be " THROWING AWAY YOUR MONEY ". Dupe AlertI DON'T THINK THE GUY KNEW HE HAD A WINNERS SO HE DID DISGARD IT AND NOT MISPLACE IT, BECAUSE IF HE DID HE WOULDN'T HAVE JUST LAYED IT TO THE SIDE  MY JUDGEMENT IS FOR THE Saint.  GOD BLESS Party

csfb's avatarcsfb

Holder of a bearer instrument is presumed to be the owner.  It is not a conclusive presumption and can be disputed.  If it is proved that such instrument has been lost or misplaced by the rightful owner, finder must return it to the owner.  When a property is lost or misplaced, there is no relinquishment of ownership.  Finder does not automatically own the property.  By law he must exercise due diligence in finding the owner.  If no rightful claimant comes forth, than finder can claim ownership.

Since the ticket was found in the trash can, the issue becomes:   was the ticket lost or abandonned by the owner?  If abandonned, there was intention to relinquish ownership by the owner.  In that case, finder keeps the property.

I would be inclined to believe that the ticket was lost or inadvertently discarded if purchaser knew at that time that such was a winning ticket.  It is not common sense to throw away a winning ticket.  The reaction of the purchaser as seen on the security video should be telling.

Drivedabizness

All the legal mumbo-jumbo is intersting - but hardly on point.

 

Lawsuit after lawsuit has been settled (I suppose since I'm evidently dealing with attorneys I should say decided) according to the principle that lotteries can't decide these kinds of issues.  Hence, tickets are bearer instruments - you walk in with it and the lottery pays you.  They also go to great pains to tell people "sign the back of your ticket" specifically so these kinds of things don't happen.

 

I would think there would have to be fairly strong evidence of wrongdoing (i.e. the ticket was stolen from someone) to deny the claim of the person who turned in the winning ticket.

 

From a moral standpoint and in a civil case, the original purchaser probably has a strongher claim, due to the much lower standard of proof.  That's why so many of these kinds of cases end up being settled out of court.

 

Once a lottery starts saying "we're not going to pay the person who presented us with the winning ticket" all sorts of problems emerge.  It would be a bad path for them to take.

bellyache's avatarbellyache

I believe that the guy didn't know he had a winning ticket. Like others have said, he just looked at the code and tossed it thinking it was a loser. Because I doubt most people would just toss their winning tickets out in the garbage.

KY Floyd's avatarKY Floyd

Drivedabizness wrote:

<< All the legal mumbo-jumbo is intersting - but hardly on point.

     

Lawsuit after lawsuit has been settled (I suppose since I'm evidently dealing with attorneys I should say decided) according to the principle that lotteries can't decide these kinds of issues. >>

How could the legal mumbo jumbo not be on point in a legal case? Similar legal cases exist exactly because the courts can decide these issues, though there's no guarantee that they'll decide them properly since the parties involved will obviously be telling different stories.

In most disputes it will be difficult for the original purchaser to prove that the ticket originally belonged to them, or for non-purchasers to prove that a specific ticket was purchased as part of a pool. It's normally a matter of he said vs she said, and without solid evidence cases are decided in favor of the person in possession of the ticket. In the current case, the person who found the ticket admits to finding it, so the fact that it is a bearer instrument has no significance in determining ownership. Based on the information presented by the media (which is almost certainly not the whole story) there doesn't appear to be any dispute that the person suing was actually the original purchaser. If there's no disagreement about who the original owner was the only decision that needs to be made is whether the ticket was lost or willfully discarded. In all probability he's not going to be able to convince the court that he was so careless with a ticket he knew to be worth a million dollars that putting it in a pile with losing tickets was an accident, but he may not be the one who has to prove something. Since the law clearly establishes procedures for claiming ownership of found items it may be up to the finder to prove that the ticket was discarded and not accidentally lost. It's probably not important that the ticket was found in the trash. What's definitely important is how or why it got there.

End of comments
Subscribe to this news story