How do you explain to your loved ones that you threw away $1 million?
Well, we'll just have to wait to find out, because Kevin Donovan isn't answering questions right now.
In fact, Donovan doesn't even want anybody to know who he is. He's been keeping a low profile since immersing himself in a dispute over a winning $1 million lottery ticket with an 82-year-old Blackstone man who found it in a trash bin.
Donovan, who is seeking to regain ownership of the ticket, has not been identified in public until now. But the Massachusetts Lottery Commission released his name recently in response to a request for previously withheld information about the dispute.
Attempts to find out where Donovan lives were not successful, but he is believed to be a resident of a nearby Massachusetts town.
"I never met him," said Edward St. John, whose refuse-to-riches story made national headlines in early October. "I have no idea who the hell he is."
A grandfatherly-looking man who is often seen rifling through trash receptacles on Main Street, St. John found the winning lottery ticket in a wastebasket inside the White Hen Pantry. The convenience store verified the winnings, and the Massachusetts Lottery Commission later proclaimed St. John the rightful owner of the ticket, pledging to award him the jackpot.
Nevertheless, the Massachusetts Lottery Commission also advised St. John that it wouldn't pay him until Donovan had been granted a hearing to press his rival claim. A decision in the hearing, held last month, is due around Jan. 15, according to lottery officials.
Efforts to reach Donovan for comment about the case have not been successful. Even though St. John attended the hearing to defend his ownership of the ticket, he didn't meet his nemesis because Donovan did not attend. A local lawyer, Daniel T. Doyle, pressed the case, with his client in absentia.
Doyle has not returned repeated phone calls for comment, though he said previously his client wishes to remain anonymous.
At the White Hen Pantry, however, Donovan is a well-known customer, according to Joe Varin, the owner of the convenience store, a popular morning stop for cigarettes, coffee and, well, lottery tickets.
"He's a good person," Varin said recently. "He'd take the shirt off his back for you. All my clerks love him."
Although Donovan comes in the store almost every day, Varin said he doesn't know much about his unlucky customer. Judging from appearances, however, Varin says Donovan seems like a hard-working, blue collar-type who makes a decent living. And he's not a compulsive gambler.
"He's not one of those that has to play the lottery," he said. "He doesn't always buy lottery tickets."
Varin, whose store is counting on a $10,000 commission for selling the winning ticket, says he feels sorry for Donovan. He made a "simple mistake" and "he shouldn't be penalized for it," the owner said. Varin thinks there should be a way to settle the dispute that "makes both sides happy."
But St. John, whose comments to the press have been few and far between until now, says he has no intention of backing down.
"Absolutely not," he says.
The way St. John sees it, he found the ticket fair and square, and nobody is going to take it away from him. After all, he found it in a wastebasket. Who can say who put it there?
"I have this lawyer deal that screwed up the whole darn works," says St. John. "If it weren't for that, I'd have my money right now."
Judging from the talk around town, most people are on St. John's side. Even the lottery commission, following the airing of Donovan's claim on the ticket, deemed the evidence presented to buttress his case "inconclusive." Officials were referring, mostly, to a recording from the store's security camera.
In a previous interview, Doyle claimed that, on the day of St. John's wastebasket windfall, Donovan had spent $600 on the Texas Hold 'em Poker game, purchasing all the tickets on the dispenser at the White Hen. Then he began sorting winners from losers, exposing only a coded bar on each ticket revealing the information -- but not the winning amounts.
Donovan inadvertently placed a winner in a pile with the losers and tossed them all of the latter tickets in the store's trash bin. The jackpot, revealed only after St. John retrieved the ticket from the refuse, turned out to be $1 million.
Doyle had said St. John was in the store watching Donovan sort his tickets before sifting through the wastebasket to fish out his client's discards. Store workers have disputed that curious detail, however, and now St. John has, too.
"Everything they're saying about me is a lie," asserted St. John.
While Donovan has a lawyer fighting on his behalf, St. John's only assistance so far has come from family members and friends. But things might not stay so simple.
Even if the lottery decides to award St. John the money, Donovan can pursue his claim in Worcester Superior Court. Conceivably, Doyle could even get an injunction barring the commission from paying St. John -- at least preliminarily. It wouldn't be impossible for St. John to defend his right to the ticket under those circumstances, but it would be more difficult.
Officials at the lottery commission say the legal basis for awarding St. John the jackpot is that lottery tickets are "bearer instruments," like certain kinds of bonds. The mere possession of such documents is all the proof of ownership required under the law.
Donovan should not be so sure it was even his ticket. It really could be anyone's ticket. Regardless, it's a bearer's instrument. St. John's mistake was telling people he found it in the trash. Had he simply just signed the back and went to lottery headquarters to cash it, he would have received his first check of 20 immediately and none of this would be happening!
Donovan should not be so sure it was even his ticket. It really could be anyone's ticket. Regardless, it's a bearer's instrument. St. John's mistake was telling people he found it in the trash. Had he simply just signed the back and went to lottery headquarters to cash it, he would have received his first check of 20 immediately and none of this would be happening!
"In a previous interview, Doyle claimed that, on the day of St. John's wastebasket windfall, Donovan had spent $600 on the Texas Hold 'em Poker game, purchasing all the tickets on the dispenser at the White Hen. Then he began sorting winners from losers, exposing only a coded bar on each ticket revealing the information -- but not the winning amounts."
Sounds like this Donovan was willing to waste his money but not his time if he could buy $600 worth of lottery tickets and not take time to check them completely before trashing them. At least now he knows his time was as valuable as his money.
A few important lessons learned here. Donovan should've checked his tickets. If there were too many tickets at one time for him to deal with, take them home or buy less tickets at once. I feel sorry for the position he's in. He must be beating himself up for that one.
For St. John, he's been rewarded for dumpster diving, can't say the man doesn't deserve something for his find. If nobody went through the trash can, nobody would've claimed the ticket. Then nobody wins.
They can both make life pretty difficult for eachother. I vote for canning the attorney's fees on both sides and splitting the prize. They'll end up paying out enormous amounts just to defend their positions. Half-a-million is better than nothing by far!
While it is a bear instrument, St. John should be more flexible. His staunch approach is not going to work or win. Let me point out something. He dind't pay for the ticket, while it is a bearer instrument, he did not pay for it. It is very fortunate, he should settle and give the other person something. By the time the lawyers are done and the time it takes to get a penny it will allot of wasted time and money. Come to an agreement. I happen to agree with LottoLady, split it. It's the most times saving cost effective way of dealing with this. St. John is going to lose this battle if he remains to stern. Half million is allot of money to find. No one should be upset with that deal, Donovan or St. john.
Who can say with certainty if the ticket in question was Donovan's to begin with? It was tossed in the trash, but Now he's the spoiler...what a guy. I hope St. John gets all the money. He deserves it. He picked it out of the garbage. Greed is an amazing thing, isn't it?
Although Donovan comes in the store almost every day, Varin said he doesn't know much about his unlucky customer. Judging from appearances, however, Varin says Donovan seems like a hard-working, blue collar-type who makes a decent living. And he's not a compulsive gambler.
"He's not one of those that has to play the lottery," he said. "He doesn't always buy lottery tickets."
THEN I READ:
In a previous interview, Doyle claimed that, on the day of St. John's wastebasket windfall, Donovan had spent $600 on the Texas Hold 'em Poker game, purchasing all the tickets on the dispenser at the White Hen.
These statements seem to contradict themselves. Who would clean out a store spending $600 and then stand there and scratch them? Am I reading this incorrectly? That would take a lot of time. Plus, would there have been exactly 600 tickets left? Maybe I'm taking this too literally. Anyway, if he really did toss it in the trash, I feel sorry for him. But he is not entitled to one dime. Maybe I watch too much Law & Order but when they look through the trash they always say they don't need a warrant because it's public property.
I'm glad to see that some folks can look from the outside in on this situation and make an unbias statement. The regulations are what they are, there is no getting around them. St John doesnt need to barter with this other gent. St John gained the ticket fair and square. Finders Keepers has HELD up in court.
This whole concept of "who paid" for the ticket is irrelevant. The regulations dont say "you must show proof of pay" Or a receipt- in order to claim a winning ticket. The issue is: Does a disgarded ticket become fair game for the finder....answer: Yes. I salute St.John for not bartering or negotiating. He stands by his principles :)
Lottery tickets are bearer instruments, cut and dry. Also anything in the trash is fair game. There should be NO split. St. John is the rightful owner of the ticket.
A bearer instrument still has to be purchased, correct? I don't think this issue is as cut and dry as you say. I think it would be best to spilt simply becasue it will save everyone time and money. Get this straight, if St. John does not split it or divide it somehow HE WILL surely lose a portion of this money in lawyer fees. Regardless of right or wrong. That my friend is a fact. He is not going to keep the whole thing. People always think right and wrong with legal issues but it is not best to do so. St. John may be 100% right but he will still lose some money in his defense. Why go through all the aggravation? In my opinion also, he found the ticket,he should be appreciative. Is'nt finding even $10 a great thing, to find one million? WOW. I would gladly keep any portion I could without all the drama, even if it were half, 500k. Greed is ruling his thoughts on this right now and it could possibly be his downfall. Stay tuned. I know we're all eagerly awaiting the results of this ruling. Cheers,
A bearer instrument still has to be purchased, correct? I don't think this issue is as cut and dry as you say. I think it would be best to spilt simply becasue it will save everyone time and money. Get this straight, if St. John does not split it or divide it somehow HE WILL surely lose a portion of this money in lawyer fees. Regardless of right or wrong. That my friend is a fact. He is not going to keep the whole thing. People always think right and wrong with legal issues but it is not best to do so. St. John may be 100% right but he will still lose some money in his defense. Why go through all the aggravation? In my opinion also, he found the ticket,he should be appreciative. Is'nt finding even $10 a great thing, to find one million? WOW. I would gladly keep any portion I could without all the drama, even if it were half, 500k. Greed is ruling his thoughts on this right now and it could possibly be his downfall. Stay tuned. I know we're all eagerly awaiting the results of this ruling. Cheers,
Perhaps it's the principle of the matter. Plus perhaps he's been advised by competent legal counsel that if he offers part of the potential win then doing so is simply opening the door for the other side to have a stronger legal claim that it never belonged to St. John in the first place.
My understanding of a bearer instrument, bond, lottery ticket or whatever ... it does not matter who purchased it or if they could prove they did purchase it. It becomes the responsibility of the person who owns it to exercise due caution and maintain it where no one can get their hands on it.
The person in whose hands it rests at the time of turning it in for cash is the legal owner. Period.
"Bearer instrument" is an easy to understand phrase but tough to cope with when you are on the losing end. When you throw something away in a public trash can, it is no longer yours, you voluntarily discarded it to the dump, to the public domain and whoever looks through the trash. People make mistakes all the time, people take advantage of others' mistakes all the time. That's tough luck but that's the way it is in all areas of life, so the lesson should be "Be careful what you throw away". Unless the ticket was taken from the original buyer by assault, fraud, robbery, etc. the original buyer should not have a claim. First he should have to prove that he was separated from "his" ticket by one of these means before he can sue for any money.
If in fact a lottery ticket is not a bearer instrument, let them change the legal jargon on the back of each ticket.
>He made a "simple mistake" and "he shouldn't be penalized for it," the owner said.
I disagree. But wouldn't it be fun to go through life unpenalized for every simple mistake you make. It was a simple mistake that I overslept this morning, why should I have to lose pay or vacation time because I was late? It was a simple mistake that I forgot to mail my credit card bill on time, why should I have a late fee? It was simple mistake that I didn't see that stop sign and crashed into another car, why should my insurance go up? That would be a nice world, wouldn't it?
<< The person in whose hands it rests at the time of turning it in for cash is the legal owner. Period. >>
Just like "finders keepers, losers weepers," people here can repeat that as many times as they want, but it's simply not true. While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership. The money in your wallet is also a bearer instrument, but if you dropped a $20 bill and I picked it up before you and tried to keep it nobody here would think I actually owned it simply because it was in my possession or because I found it. The same holds true for other bearer instruments. If somebody else can prove that they are the rightful owner possession by another person is meaningless.
There is one fact in this story that everybody agrees to, and that is that St John found the ticket. That leads to another indisputable fact: somebody else was the owner before St John found it, but the ticket somehow left their possession. The legal issues are the identity of theoriginal owner and how the ticket left their possession. The law varies from place to place, but there is statutory law about ownership of lost property, and somebody who finds lost property is not entitled to ownership unless it goes unclaimed for a period of time defined by law. The law may or may not require an active effort to locate the rightful owner. It's almost certain that St John didn't follow the applicable laws about found property.
The first issue to resolve will be whether or not Donovan has a convincing case that he is really the original owner. Since nobody else has come forward to claim ownership of the ticket, he may be accepted as the original owner even with minimal proof. If Donovan prevails the second issue will be how the ticket left his possession. If he willfully discarded it in the trash then St John definitely has a legitimate claim to ownership, but "willfuly discarded" is a gray area. Deliberately throwing a stack of tickets in the trash without realizing that a winning ticket was accidentally put in that pile probably doesn't mean it was willfully discarded, but that leads to the question of whether or not he really knew the ticket was a winner. Since it's impossible to know for sure what his intent was, the outcome may well be based on a presumption that people don't throw away valuable items and that he didn't intend to discard it.
The job of the lottery department is to uphold their rules, not rule on matters of law, so they'll almost certainly rule in favor of St John unless they decide that the evidence for Donovan's case is compelling. Even so, they'll probably withold payment for a while because they don't want to risk a lawsuit if Donovan wins a court case but can't recover 100% of the money from St John. If Donovan's attorney is working for a contingency fee Donovan's cost for pursuing the case in court should be small enough that he will do so. St John will have to pay legal fees regardless of the outcome. There may not be much evidence on Donovan's side, but St John's case is seriously handicapped since there's no question that the ticket was found and not purchased. If the two of them have any sense at all they'll look at the maximum that either of them could net and work out a compromise from there.
<< The person in whose hands it rests at the time of turning it in for cash is the legal owner. Period. >>
Just like "finders keepers, losers weepers," people here can repeat that as many times as they want, but it's simply not true. While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership. The money in your wallet is also a bearer instrument, but if you dropped a $20 bill and I picked it up before you and tried to keep it nobody here would think I actually owned it simply because it was in my possession or because I found it. The same holds true for other bearer instruments. If somebody else can prove that they are the rightful owner possession by another person is meaningless.
There is one fact in this story that everybody agrees to, and that is that St John found the ticket. That leads to another indisputable fact: somebody else was the owner before St John found it, but the ticket somehow left their possession. The legal issues are the identity of theoriginal owner and how the ticket left their possession. The law varies from place to place, but there is statutory law about ownership of lost property, and somebody who finds lost property is not entitled to ownership unless it goes unclaimed for a period of time defined by law. The law may or may not require an active effort to locate the rightful owner. It's almost certain that St John didn't follow the applicable laws about found property.
The first issue to resolve will be whether or not Donovan has a convincing case that he is really the original owner. Since nobody else has come forward to claim ownership of the ticket, he may be accepted as the original owner even with minimal proof. If Donovan prevails the second issue will be how the ticket left his possession. If he willfully discarded it in the trash then St John definitely has a legitimate claim to ownership, but "willfuly discarded" is a gray area. Deliberately throwing a stack of tickets in the trash without realizing that a winning ticket was accidentally put in that pile probably doesn't mean it was willfully discarded, but that leads to the question of whether or not he really knew the ticket was a winner. Since it's impossible to know for sure what his intent was, the outcome may well be based on a presumption that people don't throw away valuable items and that he didn't intend to discard it.
The job of the lottery department is to uphold their rules, not rule on matters of law, so they'll almost certainly rule in favor of St John unless they decide that the evidence for Donovan's case is compelling. Even so, they'll probably withold payment for a while because they don't want to risk a lawsuit if Donovan wins a court case but can't recover 100% of the money from St John. If Donovan's attorney is working for a contingency fee Donovan's cost for pursuing the case in court should be small enough that he will do so. St John will have to pay legal fees regardless of the outcome. There may not be much evidence on Donovan's side, but St John's case is seriously handicapped since there's no question that the ticket was found and not purchased. If the two of them have any sense at all they'll look at the maximum that either of them could net and work out a compromise from there.
You seem to be essentially saying that if I were somewhere downtown and had an unsigned jackpot ticket carelessly stuffed in my pocket with a used tissue, accidentally discarded both in a trash receptacle and a street dweller fishes it out of the trash .............. then if I can show I purchased that ticket in some manner and state that I accidentally (carelessly) discarded it then I would have a legal claim to the ticket????????
My previous statement was not meant to imply that a bearer instrument belonged to the holder of it if they obtained it in an unlawful manner. I was primarily referencing both lottery tickets and coupon bonds, the latter of which I don't believe are issued any longer.
<< The person in whose hands it rests at the time of turning it in for cash is the legal owner. Period. >>
Just like "finders keepers, losers weepers," people here can repeat that as many times as they want, but it's simply not true. While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership. The money in your wallet is also a bearer instrument, but if you dropped a $20 bill and I picked it up before you and tried to keep it nobody here would think I actually owned it simply because it was in my possession or because I found it. The same holds true for other bearer instruments. If somebody else can prove that they are the rightful owner possession by another person is meaningless.
There is one fact in this story that everybody agrees to, and that is that St John found the ticket. That leads to another indisputable fact: somebody else was the owner before St John found it, but the ticket somehow left their possession. The legal issues are the identity of theoriginal owner and how the ticket left their possession. The law varies from place to place, but there is statutory law about ownership of lost property, and somebody who finds lost property is not entitled to ownership unless it goes unclaimed for a period of time defined by law. The law may or may not require an active effort to locate the rightful owner. It's almost certain that St John didn't follow the applicable laws about found property.
The first issue to resolve will be whether or not Donovan has a convincing case that he is really the original owner. Since nobody else has come forward to claim ownership of the ticket, he may be accepted as the original owner even with minimal proof. If Donovan prevails the second issue will be how the ticket left his possession. If he willfully discarded it in the trash then St John definitely has a legitimate claim to ownership, but "willfuly discarded" is a gray area. Deliberately throwing a stack of tickets in the trash without realizing that a winning ticket was accidentally put in that pile probably doesn't mean it was willfully discarded, but that leads to the question of whether or not he really knew the ticket was a winner. Since it's impossible to know for sure what his intent was, the outcome may well be based on a presumption that people don't throw away valuable items and that he didn't intend to discard it.
The job of the lottery department is to uphold their rules, not rule on matters of law, so they'll almost certainly rule in favor of St John unless they decide that the evidence for Donovan's case is compelling. Even so, they'll probably withold payment for a while because they don't want to risk a lawsuit if Donovan wins a court case but can't recover 100% of the money from St John. If Donovan's attorney is working for a contingency fee Donovan's cost for pursuing the case in court should be small enough that he will do so. St John will have to pay legal fees regardless of the outcome. There may not be much evidence on Donovan's side, but St John's case is seriously handicapped since there's no question that the ticket was found and not purchased. If the two of them have any sense at all they'll look at the maximum that either of them could net and work out a compromise from there.
You seem to be essentially saying that if I were somewhere downtown and had an unsigned jackpot ticket carelessly stuffed in my pocket with a used tissue, accidentally discarded both in a trash receptacle and a street dweller fishes it out of the trash .............. then if I can show I purchased that ticket in some manner and state that I accidentally (carelessly) discarded it then I would have a legal claim to the ticket????????
My previous statement was not meant to imply that a bearer instrument belonged to the holder of it if they obtained it in an unlawful manner. I was primarily referencing both lottery tickets and coupon bonds, the latter of which I don't believe are issued any longer.
Would there be a difference in losing an unsigned jackpot ticket, claiming it as lost and showing proof of its ownership,,,then throwing away a unsigned jackpot ticket that that you viewed it as a loser and discarded it....(which is why he's stating that he knew it was a winner and just put it in the wrong stack of tickets)
Not that I no what a judge would say, and I've heard everything there is to hear about this case....but if you decide on the basis of the law without predjudice or emotion,,,,wouldn't you choose St. john
<< The person in whose hands it rests at the time of turning it in for cash is the legal owner. Period. >>
Just like "finders keepers, losers weepers," people here can repeat that as many times as they want, but it's simply not true. While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership. The money in your wallet is also a bearer instrument, but if you dropped a $20 bill and I picked it up before you and tried to keep it nobody here would think I actually owned it simply because it was in my possession or because I found it. The same holds true for other bearer instruments. If somebody else can prove that they are the rightful owner possession by another person is meaningless.
There is one fact in this story that everybody agrees to, and that is that St John found the ticket. That leads to another indisputable fact: somebody else was the owner before St John found it, but the ticket somehow left their possession. The legal issues are the identity of theoriginal owner and how the ticket left their possession. The law varies from place to place, but there is statutory law about ownership of lost property, and somebody who finds lost property is not entitled to ownership unless it goes unclaimed for a period of time defined by law. The law may or may not require an active effort to locate the rightful owner. It's almost certain that St John didn't follow the applicable laws about found property.
The first issue to resolve will be whether or not Donovan has a convincing case that he is really the original owner. Since nobody else has come forward to claim ownership of the ticket, he may be accepted as the original owner even with minimal proof. If Donovan prevails the second issue will be how the ticket left his possession. If he willfully discarded it in the trash then St John definitely has a legitimate claim to ownership, but "willfuly discarded" is a gray area. Deliberately throwing a stack of tickets in the trash without realizing that a winning ticket was accidentally put in that pile probably doesn't mean it was willfully discarded, but that leads to the question of whether or not he really knew the ticket was a winner. Since it's impossible to know for sure what his intent was, the outcome may well be based on a presumption that people don't throw away valuable items and that he didn't intend to discard it.
The job of the lottery department is to uphold their rules, not rule on matters of law, so they'll almost certainly rule in favor of St John unless they decide that the evidence for Donovan's case is compelling. Even so, they'll probably withold payment for a while because they don't want to risk a lawsuit if Donovan wins a court case but can't recover 100% of the money from St John. If Donovan's attorney is working for a contingency fee Donovan's cost for pursuing the case in court should be small enough that he will do so. St John will have to pay legal fees regardless of the outcome. There may not be much evidence on Donovan's side, but St John's case is seriously handicapped since there's no question that the ticket was found and not purchased. If the two of them have any sense at all they'll look at the maximum that either of them could net and work out a compromise from there.
You seem to be essentially saying that if I were somewhere downtown and had an unsigned jackpot ticket carelessly stuffed in my pocket with a used tissue, accidentally discarded both in a trash receptacle and a street dweller fishes it out of the trash .............. then if I can show I purchased that ticket in some manner and state that I accidentally (carelessly) discarded it then I would have a legal claim to the ticket????????
My previous statement was not meant to imply that a bearer instrument belonged to the holder of it if they obtained it in an unlawful manner. I was primarily referencing both lottery tickets and coupon bonds, the latter of which I don't believe are issued any longer.
Would there be a difference in losing an unsigned jackpot ticket, claiming it as lost and showing proof of its ownership,,,then throwing away a unsigned jackpot ticket that that you viewed it as a loser and discarded it....(which is why he's stating that he knew it was a winner and just put it in the wrong stack of tickets)
Not that I no what a judge would say, and I've heard everything there is to hear about this case....but if you decide on the basis of the law without predjudice or emotion,,,,wouldn't you choose St. john
Hey, I'd choose St. John hands down based on the information we've been privy to.
His big mistake was in not cashing in the ticket before he announced it..... which precisely how a potential winner would handle my "winning ticket" I used as an illustration above.
When you are raised in a society where you don't have to stand on your own two feet and be what you are, it is easy to start looking for some ones elses shoes to stand in - soon you can't tell the difference between their shoes or their pockets.
<< Would there be a difference in losing an unsigned jackpot ticket, claiming it as lost and showing proof of its ownership,,,then throwing away a unsigned jackpot ticket that that you viewed it as a loser and discarded it....(which is why he's stating that he knew it was a winner and just put it in the wrong stack of tickets)
Not that I no what a judge would say, and I've heard everything there is to hear about this case....but if you decide on the basis of the law without predjudice or emotion,,,,wouldn't you choose St. john >>
Obviously, being easily able to prove that something belonged to you is rather useful in trying to recover it. As for what happens if you throw something away by accident, it probably depends on how the court feels about your credibility. It will certainly help if you can demonstrate that you discovered the error and began trying to recover the property before somebody else made the loss known to you by finding it and telling people about it. Unless you've heard alot more than what has been in th enews accounts you haven't come close to hearing everything there is to hear about the case. There are a lot of unanswered questions, and it's possible that there will never be an answers to some of them.
None of us knows for sure what a judge will say, or what a jury will decide. How many people here believe OJ and Robert Blake were really innocent? Most people here are clearly not making unbiased decisions based on the law as evidenced by the repetition of the "finders keepers" phrase. We don't know for certain who it was, or why it happened, but somebody lost out on a million dollars, but almost everybody who has posted about it is farmore sympathetic to St John even though he appears to have been just as dumb as the person who managed to lose track of the ticket. If it hadn't quickly become common knowledge that he found the ticket the case would be much easier to decide. If Donovan came forward before the publicity he'd probably have a very good case. If he hadn't come forward at all we'd be as close to positive as we ever could be that he didn't know it was a winner when he threw it away. On the basis of law St John is only entitled to the ticket if it can be established that it wasn't discarded accidentally, or if it can't be established who the rightful owner is.
KYFloyd- Did you study Massachusett state law? What Section code describes the rights of property verses a bearer's instrument. Might do some good to do a google search on Massachusett law and how it pertains to this case. I was amazed when I read up on it !
In final analysis, the Courts seek fairness. What is Fair here?
Cut and dry? Anyone who has ever dealt with the Courts as either a planitiff or a defendant knows that nothing is cut and dry to the Court. The judge/jury must hear the facts and decide what is fair. It's anyone's guess.
Although Donovan comes in the store almost every day, Varin said he doesn't know much about his unlucky customer. Judging from appearances, however, Varin says Donovan seems like a hard-working, blue collar-type who makes a decent living. And he's not a compulsive gambler.
"He's not one of those that has to play the lottery," he said. "He doesn't always buy lottery tickets."
THEN I READ:
In a previous interview, Doyle claimed that, on the day of St. John's wastebasket windfall, Donovan had spent $600 on the Texas Hold 'em Poker game, purchasing all the tickets on the dispenser at the White Hen.
These statements seem to contradict themselves. Who would clean out a store spending $600 and then stand there and scratch them? Am I reading this incorrectly? That would take a lot of time. Plus, would there have been exactly 600 tickets left? Maybe I'm taking this too literally. Anyway, if he really did toss it in the trash, I feel sorry for him. But he is not entitled to one dime. Maybe I watch too much Law & Order but when they look through the trash they always say they don't need a warrant because it's public property.
I agree. Something's fishy. may just be an innocent fishy. either way, donovan ed up by throwing his tickets away.
it's one thing if the ticket is stolen, or if the tickets were actually lost (he had it in his coat pocket, and the wind blew in such a way that things got scrambled). that would be horrible, but there would be sympathy for him.
when you personally put something in the rubbish bin, though, you are giving up all claims to owning it. you can't set a couch out in the student ghetto, then demand the couch back because you found out there was a $500 bill found in the cushions once some students picked up your trash. you trashed it, willfully. it is no longer yours.
you can't have a garage sale -- or take items out to the city dump -- and basically give away old frames, then demand the paintings back once you find out that a frame given away is actually worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
<< The person in whose hands it rests at the time of turning it in for cash is the legal owner. Period. >>
Just like "finders keepers, losers weepers," people here can repeat that as many times as they want, but it's simply not true. While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership. The money in your wallet is also a bearer instrument, but if you dropped a $20 bill and I picked it up before you and tried to keep it nobody here would think I actually owned it simply because it was in my possession or because I found it. The same holds true for other bearer instruments. If somebody else can prove that they are the rightful owner possession by another person is meaningless.
There is one fact in this story that everybody agrees to, and that is that St John found the ticket. That leads to another indisputable fact: somebody else was the owner before St John found it, but the ticket somehow left their possession. The legal issues are the identity of theoriginal owner and how the ticket left their possession. The law varies from place to place, but there is statutory law about ownership of lost property, and somebody who finds lost property is not entitled to ownership unless it goes unclaimed for a period of time defined by law. The law may or may not require an active effort to locate the rightful owner. It's almost certain that St John didn't follow the applicable laws about found property.
The first issue to resolve will be whether or not Donovan has a convincing case that he is really the original owner. Since nobody else has come forward to claim ownership of the ticket, he may be accepted as the original owner even with minimal proof. If Donovan prevails the second issue will be how the ticket left his possession. If he willfully discarded it in the trash then St John definitely has a legitimate claim to ownership, but "willfuly discarded" is a gray area. Deliberately throwing a stack of tickets in the trash without realizing that a winning ticket was accidentally put in that pile probably doesn't mean it was willfully discarded, but that leads to the question of whether or not he really knew the ticket was a winner. Since it's impossible to know for sure what his intent was, the outcome may well be based on a presumption that people don't throw away valuable items and that he didn't intend to discard it.
The job of the lottery department is to uphold their rules, not rule on matters of law, so they'll almost certainly rule in favor of St John unless they decide that the evidence for Donovan's case is compelling. Even so, they'll probably withold payment for a while because they don't want to risk a lawsuit if Donovan wins a court case but can't recover 100% of the money from St John. If Donovan's attorney is working for a contingency fee Donovan's cost for pursuing the case in court should be small enough that he will do so. St John will have to pay legal fees regardless of the outcome. There may not be much evidence on Donovan's side, but St John's case is seriously handicapped since there's no question that the ticket was found and not purchased. If the two of them have any sense at all they'll look at the maximum that either of them could net and work out a compromise from there.
i always thought the difference between the dropped 20 dollar bill and a tossed away 20 dollar bill was a big one. in one case you didn't mean to lose it, it just dropped. it's still yours. or at least, it should be. just like losing the keys to your car doesn't give the finder of those keys possession of the car as well as your keys.
now, if you purposefully dropped that 20 dollar bill in the trash bin, or stuck it in a stripper's g string, it's gone. you gave it away, you threw it away. you can't have it back.
but i'm not a lawyer, so maybe that's not how it works after all. all in all, this thread has been some interesting food for thought.
<< The person in whose hands it rests at the time of turning it in for cash is the legal owner. Period. >>
Just like "finders keepers, losers weepers," people here can repeat that as many times as they want, but it's simply not true. While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership. The money in your wallet is also a bearer instrument, but if you dropped a $20 bill and I picked it up before you and tried to keep it nobody here would think I actually owned it simply because it was in my possession or because I found it. The same holds true for other bearer instruments. If somebody else can prove that they are the rightful owner possession by another person is meaningless.
There is one fact in this story that everybody agrees to, and that is that St John found the ticket. That leads to another indisputable fact: somebody else was the owner before St John found it, but the ticket somehow left their possession. The legal issues are the identity of theoriginal owner and how the ticket left their possession. The law varies from place to place, but there is statutory law about ownership of lost property, and somebody who finds lost property is not entitled to ownership unless it goes unclaimed for a period of time defined by law. The law may or may not require an active effort to locate the rightful owner. It's almost certain that St John didn't follow the applicable laws about found property.
The first issue to resolve will be whether or not Donovan has a convincing case that he is really the original owner. Since nobody else has come forward to claim ownership of the ticket, he may be accepted as the original owner even with minimal proof. If Donovan prevails the second issue will be how the ticket left his possession. If he willfully discarded it in the trash then St John definitely has a legitimate claim to ownership, but "willfuly discarded" is a gray area. Deliberately throwing a stack of tickets in the trash without realizing that a winning ticket was accidentally put in that pile probably doesn't mean it was willfully discarded, but that leads to the question of whether or not he really knew the ticket was a winner. Since it's impossible to know for sure what his intent was, the outcome may well be based on a presumption that people don't throw away valuable items and that he didn't intend to discard it.
The job of the lottery department is to uphold their rules, not rule on matters of law, so they'll almost certainly rule in favor of St John unless they decide that the evidence for Donovan's case is compelling. Even so, they'll probably withold payment for a while because they don't want to risk a lawsuit if Donovan wins a court case but can't recover 100% of the money from St John. If Donovan's attorney is working for a contingency fee Donovan's cost for pursuing the case in court should be small enough that he will do so. St John will have to pay legal fees regardless of the outcome. There may not be much evidence on Donovan's side, but St John's case is seriously handicapped since there's no question that the ticket was found and not purchased. If the two of them have any sense at all they'll look at the maximum that either of them could net and work out a compromise from there.
i always thought the difference between the dropped 20 dollar bill and a tossed away 20 dollar bill was a big one. in one case you didn't mean to lose it, it just dropped. it's still yours. or at least, it should be. just like losing the keys to your car doesn't give the finder of those keys possession of the car as well as your keys.
now, if you purposefully dropped that 20 dollar bill in the trash bin, or stuck it in a stripper's g string, it's gone. you gave it away, you threw it away. you can't have it back.
but i'm not a lawyer, so maybe that's not how it works after all. all in all, this thread has been some interesting food for thought.
Seems to be a prudent message that if something has importance to you such as a $600 roll of scratch-offs then exercise due care in handling them.
Take them to your auto or home to scratch them in a safe and organized manner.
Go through them carefully at least 3 or more times to verify any potential wins.
Sign winning tickets.
Make photos, scans or copies of winning tickets.
Maintain winning tickets in a safe place even if signed.
Most of all announce the win only after you've claimed it at lottery headquarters, and only if you feel obliged to share the news.
<< The person in whose hands it rests at the time of turning it in for cash is the legal owner. Period. >>
Just like "finders keepers, losers weepers," people here can repeat that as many times as they want, but it's simply not true. While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership. The money in your wallet is also a bearer instrument, but if you dropped a $20 bill and I picked it up before you and tried to keep it nobody here would think I actually owned it simply because it was in my possession or because I found it. The same holds true for other bearer instruments. If somebody else can prove that they are the rightful owner possession by another person is meaningless.
There is one fact in this story that everybody agrees to, and that is that St John found the ticket. That leads to another indisputable fact: somebody else was the owner before St John found it, but the ticket somehow left their possession. The legal issues are the identity of theoriginal owner and how the ticket left their possession. The law varies from place to place, but there is statutory law about ownership of lost property, and somebody who finds lost property is not entitled to ownership unless it goes unclaimed for a period of time defined by law. The law may or may not require an active effort to locate the rightful owner. It's almost certain that St John didn't follow the applicable laws about found property.
The first issue to resolve will be whether or not Donovan has a convincing case that he is really the original owner. Since nobody else has come forward to claim ownership of the ticket, he may be accepted as the original owner even with minimal proof. If Donovan prevails the second issue will be how the ticket left his possession. If he willfully discarded it in the trash then St John definitely has a legitimate claim to ownership, but "willfuly discarded" is a gray area. Deliberately throwing a stack of tickets in the trash without realizing that a winning ticket was accidentally put in that pile probably doesn't mean it was willfully discarded, but that leads to the question of whether or not he really knew the ticket was a winner. Since it's impossible to know for sure what his intent was, the outcome may well be based on a presumption that people don't throw away valuable items and that he didn't intend to discard it.
The job of the lottery department is to uphold their rules, not rule on matters of law, so they'll almost certainly rule in favor of St John unless they decide that the evidence for Donovan's case is compelling. Even so, they'll probably withold payment for a while because they don't want to risk a lawsuit if Donovan wins a court case but can't recover 100% of the money from St John. If Donovan's attorney is working for a contingency fee Donovan's cost for pursuing the case in court should be small enough that he will do so. St John will have to pay legal fees regardless of the outcome. There may not be much evidence on Donovan's side, but St John's case is seriously handicapped since there's no question that the ticket was found and not purchased. If the two of them have any sense at all they'll look at the maximum that either of them could net and work out a compromise from there.
i always thought the difference between the dropped 20 dollar bill and a tossed away 20 dollar bill was a big one. in one case you didn't mean to lose it, it just dropped. it's still yours. or at least, it should be. just like losing the keys to your car doesn't give the finder of those keys possession of the car as well as your keys.
now, if you purposefully dropped that 20 dollar bill in the trash bin, or stuck it in a stripper's g string, it's gone. you gave it away, you threw it away. you can't have it back.
but i'm not a lawyer, so maybe that's not how it works after all. all in all, this thread has been some interesting food for thought.
Seems to be a prudent message that if something has importance to you such as a $600 roll of scratch-offs then exercise due care in handling them.
Take them to your auto or home to scratch them in a safe and organized manner.
Go through them carefully at least 3 or more times to verify any potential wins.
Sign winning tickets.
Make photos, scans or copies of winning tickets.
Maintain winning tickets in a safe place even if signed.
Most of all announce the win only after you've claimed it at lottery headquarters, and only if you feel obliged to share the news.
Excellent point, K.
I purchased a dozen paper slot machines this past weekend and scratched them with family members. We put the winners in a stack( not very many) and the losers in another.
As a rule I keep all losers for tax purposes, but I also like to look at them one more time.
Well, as I was looking at them that second time, I found a number we missed, and it was worth $10, so the moral is don't throw them in the trash-we all make mistakes and need to be darn sure they are losers before discarding them !!!!!
Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug...
DoubleDown
I have never hear it put like this. DoubleDown. I could have claimed that I threw my ticket away too. I thought that it was so sad to harass the man about his good find. One man's trash is another's treasure. His ignorance in throwing the ticket away does not give him the right to claim it. HIS NAME ON IT ANYWHERE???? Let me trapst from Alabama to claim that it was mine. How ridicolous! Have any of you heard the story of a person who bought a house and was cleaning out the attic and got rid of a van Gogh? It was sold at a yard sale for $4.00 and the person who bought it was so excited about the tremendous bargain!...blabbed it to the papers, etc....anyway, the one who 'gave away a van Gogh' (sold it at the yard sale for a mere 4 bucks) filed lawsuit claiming they did not realize they had gotten rid of a masterpiece and wanted money for what it was worth.
In final analysis, the Courts seek fairness. What is Fair here?
Cut and dry? Anyone who has ever dealt with the Courts as either a planitiff or a defendant knows that nothing is cut and dry to the Court. The judge/jury must hear the facts and decide what is fair. It's anyone's guess.
In the final analysis the Courts seek to uphold the law. Fair has nothing to do with it unless the statutes are written with that in mind, which they sometimes are, sometimes aren't.
But those lawyers in a good court aren't going to be allowed to present evidence about abstractions. They're going to have to present evidence pertaining to precisely what the statutes codify. Nothing less, nothing more.
Fair is just a concept with too much elbow room inside it to allow it in a court of law.
<< The person in whose hands it rests at the time of turning it in for cash is the legal owner. Period. >>
Just like "finders keepers, losers weepers," people here can repeat that as many times as they want, but it's simply not true. While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership. The money in your wallet is also a bearer instrument, but if you dropped a $20 bill and I picked it up before you and tried to keep it nobody here would think I actually owned it simply because it was in my possession or because I found it. The same holds true for other bearer instruments. If somebody else can prove that they are the rightful owner possession by another person is meaningless.
There is one fact in this story that everybody agrees to, and that is that St John found the ticket. That leads to another indisputable fact: somebody else was the owner before St John found it, but the ticket somehow left their possession. The legal issues are the identity of theoriginal owner and how the ticket left their possession. The law varies from place to place, but there is statutory law about ownership of lost property, and somebody who finds lost property is not entitled to ownership unless it goes unclaimed for a period of time defined by law. The law may or may not require an active effort to locate the rightful owner. It's almost certain that St John didn't follow the applicable laws about found property.
The first issue to resolve will be whether or not Donovan has a convincing case that he is really the original owner. Since nobody else has come forward to claim ownership of the ticket, he may be accepted as the original owner even with minimal proof. If Donovan prevails the second issue will be how the ticket left his possession. If he willfully discarded it in the trash then St John definitely has a legitimate claim to ownership, but "willfuly discarded" is a gray area. Deliberately throwing a stack of tickets in the trash without realizing that a winning ticket was accidentally put in that pile probably doesn't mean it was willfully discarded, but that leads to the question of whether or not he really knew the ticket was a winner. Since it's impossible to know for sure what his intent was, the outcome may well be based on a presumption that people don't throw away valuable items and that he didn't intend to discard it.
The job of the lottery department is to uphold their rules, not rule on matters of law, so they'll almost certainly rule in favor of St John unless they decide that the evidence for Donovan's case is compelling. Even so, they'll probably withold payment for a while because they don't want to risk a lawsuit if Donovan wins a court case but can't recover 100% of the money from St John. If Donovan's attorney is working for a contingency fee Donovan's cost for pursuing the case in court should be small enough that he will do so. St John will have to pay legal fees regardless of the outcome. There may not be much evidence on Donovan's side, but St John's case is seriously handicapped since there's no question that the ticket was found and not purchased. If the two of them have any sense at all they'll look at the maximum that either of them could net and work out a compromise from there.
i always thought the difference between the dropped 20 dollar bill and a tossed away 20 dollar bill was a big one. in one case you didn't mean to lose it, it just dropped. it's still yours. or at least, it should be. just like losing the keys to your car doesn't give the finder of those keys possession of the car as well as your keys.
now, if you purposefully dropped that 20 dollar bill in the trash bin, or stuck it in a stripper's g string, it's gone. you gave it away, you threw it away. you can't have it back.
but i'm not a lawyer, so maybe that's not how it works after all. all in all, this thread has been some interesting food for thought.
I'd rather stick a $20 in a stripper's g-string than spend it on annuity-only tickets.
While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership.
I agree with this statement. Every law or rule, no matter how clearly stated, can be challenged because there is often a gray area. The woman who stole a purse and claimed the winning ticket or the clerk in AZ who cashed in a ticket she stole were also bearers, but they weren't the legal owners.
While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership.
I agree with this statement. Every law or rule, no matter how clearly stated, can be challenged because there is often a gray area. The woman who stole a purse and claimed the winning ticket or the clerk in AZ who cashed in a ticket she stole were also bearers, but they weren't the legal owners.
Possession is nine tenths of the law, so it becomes the true owners responsibility to prove that they are the owner.
Whether he still owned the tickets after he deliberately discarded them,
Whether the ownership passed to the store, or not, or to anyone who retrieved them,
Whether ownership passed to the dumpster diver when he retrieved them,
Whether there was 'consent' on the part of the store for the garbage that presumably still belonged to them to be claimed by the dumpster diver, and if not, would they have allowed their property (the winning ticket/garbage) to belong, either to the dumpster diver, or to the guy who deliberately gave them back to the store.
Seems to me if anyone has a claim, other than the dumpster diver, it's the store ownership. Assuming the 'bearer instrument' status of the ticket doesn't hold water. Not the guy who gave them to the store. The store owned those tickets from the time he discarded them. There's evidently no question of where the tickets were found.
And, in fact, they had signs out about loitering, which might well include dumpster diving. If a case was introduced I think they'd have a middling shot at winning it on the premise that the dumpster diver stole property of value from the store.
But the guy who bought the tickets is two layers away from ownership of them. No case could be made suggesting the store didn't own the tickets when they were found. They were legally responsible for them, along with all their other trash. Holding it in a sanitary manner, disposing of it properly. They possessed it in a completely legal way, as demonstrated by the fact that if they disposed of it improperly they could be legally cited for doing so.
One of the risks for all dumpster divers when they take items from garbage receptacles, is the criminal reality of being accused of theft. It usually doesn't happen, but it can.
The store was aware of the dumpster diver's find and relinquished all claims to the Lottery Ticket by allowing the Dumpster Diver to remove the Ticket from the premises.
Do you know that for a fact, Raven62, or are you just guessing?
It's clear they didn't have him arrested for theft. But the legal question of whether they tacitly consented to allowing him ownership of the ticket seems to me to be entirely up for grabs.
They certainly have him on the security camera taking the ticket.
I'd bet if the dumpster diver wins his court case against the original purchaser his legal battles over the money haven't even begun. And the party of the second part definitely has a better claim than the purchaser.
We have no idea what transpired between him and the store staff when all that went on. But the store has it all on camera, which will qualify as proof.
The lawyers are going to have their day on this one. And I'd say there's a middling chance the dumpster diver will walk away being glad he ain't in jail before it's over.
If he didn't specifically ask permission to take that ticket, and if the store manager didn't specifically give it to him I think he could have a serious problem.
Probably all insignificant where a lot of money's concerned, Raven.
Someone pointed out that before people make pronouncements about legalities they ought to be aware of what the laws say. This one's complicated enough so's, unless you and I are lawyers, we don't have a clue of what the outcomes will be.
Rhetorical questions won't be deciding factors
I'm not a lawyer. I'm just an old country boy in New Mexico
Court Cases have nothing to do with Truth or Justice. If the Dumpster Diver didn't retrieve the Ticket from the Trash Bin the Ticket would now be in some land fill somewhere, Lost forever.
You're restating the obvious, Raven, and the irrelevant. Court cases are going to be where it's decided where truth and justice are to be found in this instance.
Maybe you won't like it, maybe I won't like it, but it's reality and it's stamped firmly there in civil and criminal codes.
Thank goodness.
Life would be fairer sometimes, sometimes more filled with warm huggies, if we just went by gut-feel concepts of truth and justice as you and I percieve them. But there'd also be a lot more of what anyone who doesn't subscribe to your particular views on important matters would consider downright abusive.
It's all we've got, those criminal and civil codes, and the US Constitution. We need a lot more solid adherence to all of them, not less, just for a lot of feelgood.
Donovan should not be so sure it was even his ticket. It really could be anyone's ticket. Regardless, it's a bearer's instrument. St. John's mistake was telling people he found it in the trash. Had he simply just signed the back and went to lottery headquarters to cash it, he would have received his first check of 20 immediately and none of this would be happening!
Donovan should not be so sure it was even his ticket. It really could be anyone's ticket. Regardless, it's a bearer's instrument. St. John's mistake was telling people he found it in the trash. Had he simply just signed the back and went to lottery headquarters to cash it, he would have received his first check of 20 immediately and none of this would be happening!
I hope that Donovan gets a lump of coal in his stocking....
"In a previous interview, Doyle claimed that, on the day of St. John's wastebasket windfall, Donovan had spent $600 on the Texas Hold 'em Poker game, purchasing all the tickets on the dispenser at the White Hen. Then he began sorting winners from losers, exposing only a coded bar on each ticket revealing the information -- but not the winning amounts."
Sounds like this Donovan was willing to waste his money but not his time if he could buy $600 worth of lottery tickets and not take time to check them completely before trashing them. At least now he knows his time was as valuable as his money.
A few important lessons learned here. Donovan should've checked his tickets. If there were too many tickets at one time for him to deal with, take them home or buy less tickets at once. I feel sorry for the position he's in. He must be beating himself up for that one.
For St. John, he's been rewarded for dumpster diving, can't say the man doesn't deserve something for his find. If nobody went through the trash can, nobody would've claimed the ticket. Then nobody wins.
They can both make life pretty difficult for eachother. I vote for canning the attorney's fees on both sides and splitting the prize. They'll end up paying out enormous amounts just to defend their positions. Half-a-million is better than nothing by far!
While it is a bear instrument, St. John should be more flexible. His staunch approach is not going to work or win. Let me point out something. He dind't pay for the ticket, while it is a bearer instrument, he did not pay for it. It is very fortunate, he should settle and give the other person something. By the time the lawyers are done and the time it takes to get a penny it will allot of wasted time and money. Come to an agreement. I happen to agree with LottoLady, split it. It's the most times saving cost effective way of dealing with this. St. John is going to lose this battle if he remains to stern. Half million is allot of money to find. No one should be upset with that deal, Donovan or St. john.
Who can say with certainty if the ticket in question was Donovan's to begin with? It was tossed in the trash, but Now he's the spoiler...what a guy. I hope St. John gets all the money. He deserves it. He picked it out of the garbage. Greed is an amazing thing, isn't it?
FIRST I READ:
Although Donovan comes in the store almost every day, Varin said he doesn't know much about his unlucky customer. Judging from appearances, however, Varin says Donovan seems like a hard-working, blue collar-type who makes a decent living. And he's not a compulsive gambler.
"He's not one of those that has to play the lottery," he said. "He doesn't always buy lottery tickets."
THEN I READ:
In a previous interview, Doyle claimed that, on the day of St. John's wastebasket windfall, Donovan had spent $600 on the Texas Hold 'em Poker game, purchasing all the tickets on the dispenser at the White Hen.
These statements seem to contradict themselves. Who would clean out a store spending $600 and then stand there and scratch them? Am I reading this incorrectly? That would take a lot of time. Plus, would there have been exactly 600 tickets left? Maybe I'm taking this too literally. Anyway, if he really did toss it in the trash, I feel sorry for him. But he is not entitled to one dime. Maybe I watch too much Law & Order but when they look through the trash they always say they don't need a warrant because it's public property.
I'm glad to see that some folks can look from the outside in on this situation and make an unbias statement. The regulations are what they are, there is no getting around them. St John doesnt need to barter with this other gent. St John gained the ticket fair and square. Finders Keepers has HELD up in court.
This whole concept of "who paid" for the ticket is irrelevant. The regulations dont say "you must show proof of pay" Or a receipt- in order to claim a winning ticket. The issue is: Does a disgarded ticket become fair game for the finder....answer: Yes. I salute St.John for not bartering or negotiating. He stands by his principles :)
What is Mr. Donovan's moral right to the prize?
What is his legal right to the prize?
What are St. John's rights to the prize?
It seems clear to me, but Courts sometimes see things I don't see.
An argument can be made for either side, but in the end I believe that the finder of the trashed ticket will prevail.
I would be very surprised if it turned out any other way.
Lottery tickets are bearer instruments, cut and dry. Also anything in the trash is fair game. There should be NO split. St. John is the rightful owner of the ticket.
A bearer instrument still has to be purchased, correct? I don't think this issue is as cut and dry as you say. I think it would be best to spilt simply becasue it will save everyone time and money. Get this straight, if St. John does not split it or divide it somehow HE WILL surely lose a portion of this money in lawyer fees. Regardless of right or wrong. That my friend is a fact. He is not going to keep the whole thing. People always think right and wrong with legal issues but it is not best to do so. St. John may be 100% right but he will still lose some money in his defense. Why go through all the aggravation? In my opinion also, he found the ticket,he should be appreciative. Is'nt finding even $10 a great thing, to find one million? WOW. I would gladly keep any portion I could without all the drama, even if it were half, 500k. Greed is ruling his thoughts on this right now and it could possibly be his downfall. Stay tuned. I know we're all eagerly awaiting the results of this ruling. Cheers,
A bearer instrument still has to be purchased, correct? I don't think this issue is as cut and dry as you say. I think it would be best to spilt simply becasue it will save everyone time and money. Get this straight, if St. John does not split it or divide it somehow HE WILL surely lose a portion of this money in lawyer fees. Regardless of right or wrong. That my friend is a fact. He is not going to keep the whole thing. People always think right and wrong with legal issues but it is not best to do so. St. John may be 100% right but he will still lose some money in his defense. Why go through all the aggravation? In my opinion also, he found the ticket,he should be appreciative. Is'nt finding even $10 a great thing, to find one million? WOW. I would gladly keep any portion I could without all the drama, even if it were half, 500k. Greed is ruling his thoughts on this right now and it could possibly be his downfall. Stay tuned. I know we're all eagerly awaiting the results of this ruling. Cheers,
Perhaps it's the principle of the matter. Plus perhaps he's been advised by competent legal counsel that if he offers part of the potential win then doing so is simply opening the door for the other side to have a stronger legal claim that it never belonged to St. John in the first place.
My understanding of a bearer instrument, bond, lottery ticket or whatever ... it does not matter who purchased it or if they could prove they did purchase it. It becomes the responsibility of the person who owns it to exercise due caution and maintain it where no one can get their hands on it.
The person in whose hands it rests at the time of turning it in for cash is the legal owner. Period.
"Bearer instrument" is an easy to understand phrase but tough to cope with when you are on the losing end. When you throw something away in a public trash can, it is no longer yours, you voluntarily discarded it to the dump, to the public domain and whoever looks through the trash. People make mistakes all the time, people take advantage of others' mistakes all the time. That's tough luck but that's the way it is in all areas of life, so the lesson should be "Be careful what you throw away". Unless the ticket was taken from the original buyer by assault, fraud, robbery, etc. the original buyer should not have a claim. First he should have to prove that he was separated from "his" ticket by one of these means before he can sue for any money.
If in fact a lottery ticket is not a bearer instrument, let them change the legal jargon on the back of each ticket.
>He made a "simple mistake" and "he shouldn't be penalized for it," the owner said.
I disagree. But wouldn't it be fun to go through life unpenalized for every simple mistake you make. It was a simple mistake that I overslept this morning, why should I have to lose pay or vacation time because I was late? It was a simple mistake that I forgot to mail my credit card bill on time, why should I have a late fee? It was simple mistake that I didn't see that stop sign and crashed into another car, why should my insurance go up? That would be a nice world, wouldn't it?
konane wrote:
<< The person in whose hands it rests at the time of turning it in for cash is the legal owner. Period. >>
Just like "finders keepers, losers weepers," people here can repeat that as many times as they want, but it's simply not true. While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership. The money in your wallet is also a bearer instrument, but if you dropped a $20 bill and I picked it up before you and tried to keep it nobody here would think I actually owned it simply because it was in my possession or because I found it. The same holds true for other bearer instruments. If somebody else can prove that they are the rightful owner possession by another person is meaningless.
There is one fact in this story that everybody agrees to, and that is that St John found the ticket. That leads to another indisputable fact: somebody else was the owner before St John found it, but the ticket somehow left their possession. The legal issues are the identity of theoriginal owner and how the ticket left their possession. The law varies from place to place, but there is statutory law about ownership of lost property, and somebody who finds lost property is not entitled to ownership unless it goes unclaimed for a period of time defined by law. The law may or may not require an active effort to locate the rightful owner. It's almost certain that St John didn't follow the applicable laws about found property.
The first issue to resolve will be whether or not Donovan has a convincing case that he is really the original owner. Since nobody else has come forward to claim ownership of the ticket, he may be accepted as the original owner even with minimal proof. If Donovan prevails the second issue will be how the ticket left his possession. If he willfully discarded it in the trash then St John definitely has a legitimate claim to ownership, but "willfuly discarded" is a gray area. Deliberately throwing a stack of tickets in the trash without realizing that a winning ticket was accidentally put in that pile probably doesn't mean it was willfully discarded, but that leads to the question of whether or not he really knew the ticket was a winner. Since it's impossible to know for sure what his intent was, the outcome may well be based on a presumption that people don't throw away valuable items and that he didn't intend to discard it.
The job of the lottery department is to uphold their rules, not rule on matters of law, so they'll almost certainly rule in favor of St John unless they decide that the evidence for Donovan's case is compelling. Even so, they'll probably withold payment for a while because they don't want to risk a lawsuit if Donovan wins a court case but can't recover 100% of the money from St John. If Donovan's attorney is working for a contingency fee Donovan's cost for pursuing the case in court should be small enough that he will do so. St John will have to pay legal fees regardless of the outcome. There may not be much evidence on Donovan's side, but St John's case is seriously handicapped since there's no question that the ticket was found and not purchased. If the two of them have any sense at all they'll look at the maximum that either of them could net and work out a compromise from there.
konane wrote:
<< The person in whose hands it rests at the time of turning it in for cash is the legal owner. Period. >>
Just like "finders keepers, losers weepers," people here can repeat that as many times as they want, but it's simply not true. While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership. The money in your wallet is also a bearer instrument, but if you dropped a $20 bill and I picked it up before you and tried to keep it nobody here would think I actually owned it simply because it was in my possession or because I found it. The same holds true for other bearer instruments. If somebody else can prove that they are the rightful owner possession by another person is meaningless.
There is one fact in this story that everybody agrees to, and that is that St John found the ticket. That leads to another indisputable fact: somebody else was the owner before St John found it, but the ticket somehow left their possession. The legal issues are the identity of theoriginal owner and how the ticket left their possession. The law varies from place to place, but there is statutory law about ownership of lost property, and somebody who finds lost property is not entitled to ownership unless it goes unclaimed for a period of time defined by law. The law may or may not require an active effort to locate the rightful owner. It's almost certain that St John didn't follow the applicable laws about found property.
The first issue to resolve will be whether or not Donovan has a convincing case that he is really the original owner. Since nobody else has come forward to claim ownership of the ticket, he may be accepted as the original owner even with minimal proof. If Donovan prevails the second issue will be how the ticket left his possession. If he willfully discarded it in the trash then St John definitely has a legitimate claim to ownership, but "willfuly discarded" is a gray area. Deliberately throwing a stack of tickets in the trash without realizing that a winning ticket was accidentally put in that pile probably doesn't mean it was willfully discarded, but that leads to the question of whether or not he really knew the ticket was a winner. Since it's impossible to know for sure what his intent was, the outcome may well be based on a presumption that people don't throw away valuable items and that he didn't intend to discard it.
The job of the lottery department is to uphold their rules, not rule on matters of law, so they'll almost certainly rule in favor of St John unless they decide that the evidence for Donovan's case is compelling. Even so, they'll probably withold payment for a while because they don't want to risk a lawsuit if Donovan wins a court case but can't recover 100% of the money from St John. If Donovan's attorney is working for a contingency fee Donovan's cost for pursuing the case in court should be small enough that he will do so. St John will have to pay legal fees regardless of the outcome. There may not be much evidence on Donovan's side, but St John's case is seriously handicapped since there's no question that the ticket was found and not purchased. If the two of them have any sense at all they'll look at the maximum that either of them could net and work out a compromise from there.
You seem to be essentially saying that if I were somewhere downtown and had an unsigned jackpot ticket carelessly stuffed in my pocket with a used tissue, accidentally discarded both in a trash receptacle and a street dweller fishes it out of the trash .............. then if I can show I purchased that ticket in some manner and state that I accidentally (carelessly) discarded it then I would have a legal claim to the ticket????????
My previous statement was not meant to imply that a bearer instrument belonged to the holder of it if they obtained it in an unlawful manner. I was primarily referencing both lottery tickets and coupon bonds, the latter of which I don't believe are issued any longer.
konane wrote:
<< The person in whose hands it rests at the time of turning it in for cash is the legal owner. Period. >>
Just like "finders keepers, losers weepers," people here can repeat that as many times as they want, but it's simply not true. While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership. The money in your wallet is also a bearer instrument, but if you dropped a $20 bill and I picked it up before you and tried to keep it nobody here would think I actually owned it simply because it was in my possession or because I found it. The same holds true for other bearer instruments. If somebody else can prove that they are the rightful owner possession by another person is meaningless.
There is one fact in this story that everybody agrees to, and that is that St John found the ticket. That leads to another indisputable fact: somebody else was the owner before St John found it, but the ticket somehow left their possession. The legal issues are the identity of theoriginal owner and how the ticket left their possession. The law varies from place to place, but there is statutory law about ownership of lost property, and somebody who finds lost property is not entitled to ownership unless it goes unclaimed for a period of time defined by law. The law may or may not require an active effort to locate the rightful owner. It's almost certain that St John didn't follow the applicable laws about found property.
The first issue to resolve will be whether or not Donovan has a convincing case that he is really the original owner. Since nobody else has come forward to claim ownership of the ticket, he may be accepted as the original owner even with minimal proof. If Donovan prevails the second issue will be how the ticket left his possession. If he willfully discarded it in the trash then St John definitely has a legitimate claim to ownership, but "willfuly discarded" is a gray area. Deliberately throwing a stack of tickets in the trash without realizing that a winning ticket was accidentally put in that pile probably doesn't mean it was willfully discarded, but that leads to the question of whether or not he really knew the ticket was a winner. Since it's impossible to know for sure what his intent was, the outcome may well be based on a presumption that people don't throw away valuable items and that he didn't intend to discard it.
The job of the lottery department is to uphold their rules, not rule on matters of law, so they'll almost certainly rule in favor of St John unless they decide that the evidence for Donovan's case is compelling. Even so, they'll probably withold payment for a while because they don't want to risk a lawsuit if Donovan wins a court case but can't recover 100% of the money from St John. If Donovan's attorney is working for a contingency fee Donovan's cost for pursuing the case in court should be small enough that he will do so. St John will have to pay legal fees regardless of the outcome. There may not be much evidence on Donovan's side, but St John's case is seriously handicapped since there's no question that the ticket was found and not purchased. If the two of them have any sense at all they'll look at the maximum that either of them could net and work out a compromise from there.
You seem to be essentially saying that if I were somewhere downtown and had an unsigned jackpot ticket carelessly stuffed in my pocket with a used tissue, accidentally discarded both in a trash receptacle and a street dweller fishes it out of the trash .............. then if I can show I purchased that ticket in some manner and state that I accidentally (carelessly) discarded it then I would have a legal claim to the ticket????????
My previous statement was not meant to imply that a bearer instrument belonged to the holder of it if they obtained it in an unlawful manner. I was primarily referencing both lottery tickets and coupon bonds, the latter of which I don't believe are issued any longer.
Would there be a difference in losing an unsigned jackpot ticket, claiming it as lost and showing proof of its ownership,,,then throwing away a unsigned jackpot ticket that that you viewed it as a loser and discarded it....(which is why he's stating that he knew it was a winner and just put it in the wrong stack of tickets)
Not that I no what a judge would say, and I've heard everything there is to hear about this case....but if you decide on the basis of the law without predjudice or emotion,,,,wouldn't you choose St. john
konane wrote:
<< The person in whose hands it rests at the time of turning it in for cash is the legal owner. Period. >>
Just like "finders keepers, losers weepers," people here can repeat that as many times as they want, but it's simply not true. While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership. The money in your wallet is also a bearer instrument, but if you dropped a $20 bill and I picked it up before you and tried to keep it nobody here would think I actually owned it simply because it was in my possession or because I found it. The same holds true for other bearer instruments. If somebody else can prove that they are the rightful owner possession by another person is meaningless.
There is one fact in this story that everybody agrees to, and that is that St John found the ticket. That leads to another indisputable fact: somebody else was the owner before St John found it, but the ticket somehow left their possession. The legal issues are the identity of theoriginal owner and how the ticket left their possession. The law varies from place to place, but there is statutory law about ownership of lost property, and somebody who finds lost property is not entitled to ownership unless it goes unclaimed for a period of time defined by law. The law may or may not require an active effort to locate the rightful owner. It's almost certain that St John didn't follow the applicable laws about found property.
The first issue to resolve will be whether or not Donovan has a convincing case that he is really the original owner. Since nobody else has come forward to claim ownership of the ticket, he may be accepted as the original owner even with minimal proof. If Donovan prevails the second issue will be how the ticket left his possession. If he willfully discarded it in the trash then St John definitely has a legitimate claim to ownership, but "willfuly discarded" is a gray area. Deliberately throwing a stack of tickets in the trash without realizing that a winning ticket was accidentally put in that pile probably doesn't mean it was willfully discarded, but that leads to the question of whether or not he really knew the ticket was a winner. Since it's impossible to know for sure what his intent was, the outcome may well be based on a presumption that people don't throw away valuable items and that he didn't intend to discard it.
The job of the lottery department is to uphold their rules, not rule on matters of law, so they'll almost certainly rule in favor of St John unless they decide that the evidence for Donovan's case is compelling. Even so, they'll probably withold payment for a while because they don't want to risk a lawsuit if Donovan wins a court case but can't recover 100% of the money from St John. If Donovan's attorney is working for a contingency fee Donovan's cost for pursuing the case in court should be small enough that he will do so. St John will have to pay legal fees regardless of the outcome. There may not be much evidence on Donovan's side, but St John's case is seriously handicapped since there's no question that the ticket was found and not purchased. If the two of them have any sense at all they'll look at the maximum that either of them could net and work out a compromise from there.
You seem to be essentially saying that if I were somewhere downtown and had an unsigned jackpot ticket carelessly stuffed in my pocket with a used tissue, accidentally discarded both in a trash receptacle and a street dweller fishes it out of the trash .............. then if I can show I purchased that ticket in some manner and state that I accidentally (carelessly) discarded it then I would have a legal claim to the ticket????????
My previous statement was not meant to imply that a bearer instrument belonged to the holder of it if they obtained it in an unlawful manner. I was primarily referencing both lottery tickets and coupon bonds, the latter of which I don't believe are issued any longer.
Would there be a difference in losing an unsigned jackpot ticket, claiming it as lost and showing proof of its ownership,,,then throwing away a unsigned jackpot ticket that that you viewed it as a loser and discarded it....(which is why he's stating that he knew it was a winner and just put it in the wrong stack of tickets)
Not that I no what a judge would say, and I've heard everything there is to hear about this case....but if you decide on the basis of the law without predjudice or emotion,,,,wouldn't you choose St. john
Hey, I'd choose St. John hands down based on the information we've been privy to.
His big mistake was in not cashing in the ticket before he announced it..... which precisely how a potential winner would handle my "winning ticket" I used as an illustration above.
When you are raised in a society where you don't have to stand on your own two feet and be what you are, it is easy to start looking for some ones elses shoes to stand in - soon you can't tell the difference between their shoes or their pockets.
fja wrote:
<< Would there be a difference in losing an unsigned jackpot ticket, claiming it as lost and showing proof of its ownership,,,then throwing away a unsigned jackpot ticket that that you viewed it as a loser and discarded it....(which is why he's stating that he knew it was a winner and just put it in the wrong stack of tickets)
Not that I no what a judge would say, and I've heard everything there is to hear about this case....but if you decide on the basis of the law without predjudice or emotion,,,,wouldn't you choose St. john >>
Obviously, being easily able to prove that something belonged to you is rather useful in trying to recover it. As for what happens if you throw something away by accident, it probably depends on how the court feels about your credibility. It will certainly help if you can demonstrate that you discovered the error and began trying to recover the property before somebody else made the loss known to you by finding it and telling people about it. Unless you've heard alot more than what has been in th enews accounts you haven't come close to hearing everything there is to hear about the case. There are a lot of unanswered questions, and it's possible that there will never be an answers to some of them.
None of us knows for sure what a judge will say, or what a jury will decide. How many people here believe OJ and Robert Blake were really innocent? Most people here are clearly not making unbiased decisions based on the law as evidenced by the repetition of the "finders keepers" phrase. We don't know for certain who it was, or why it happened, but somebody lost out on a million dollars, but almost everybody who has posted about it is farmore sympathetic to St John even though he appears to have been just as dumb as the person who managed to lose track of the ticket. If it hadn't quickly become common knowledge that he found the ticket the case would be much easier to decide. If Donovan came forward before the publicity he'd probably have a very good case. If he hadn't come forward at all we'd be as close to positive as we ever could be that he didn't know it was a winner when he threw it away. On the basis of law St John is only entitled to the ticket if it can be established that it wasn't discarded accidentally, or if it can't be established who the rightful owner is.
I concur with Konane.
KYFloyd- Did you study Massachusett state law? What Section code describes the rights of property verses a bearer's instrument. Might do some good to do a google search on Massachusett law and how it pertains to this case. I was amazed when I read up on it !
In final analysis, the Courts seek fairness. What is Fair here?
Cut and dry? Anyone who has ever dealt with the Courts as either a planitiff or a defendant knows that nothing is cut and dry to the Court. The judge/jury must hear the facts and decide what is fair. It's anyone's guess.
FIRST I READ:
Although Donovan comes in the store almost every day, Varin said he doesn't know much about his unlucky customer. Judging from appearances, however, Varin says Donovan seems like a hard-working, blue collar-type who makes a decent living. And he's not a compulsive gambler.
"He's not one of those that has to play the lottery," he said. "He doesn't always buy lottery tickets."
THEN I READ:
In a previous interview, Doyle claimed that, on the day of St. John's wastebasket windfall, Donovan had spent $600 on the Texas Hold 'em Poker game, purchasing all the tickets on the dispenser at the White Hen.
These statements seem to contradict themselves. Who would clean out a store spending $600 and then stand there and scratch them? Am I reading this incorrectly? That would take a lot of time. Plus, would there have been exactly 600 tickets left? Maybe I'm taking this too literally. Anyway, if he really did toss it in the trash, I feel sorry for him. But he is not entitled to one dime. Maybe I watch too much Law & Order but when they look through the trash they always say they don't need a warrant because it's public property.
I agree. Something's fishy. may just be an innocent fishy. either way, donovan ed up by throwing his tickets away.
it's one thing if the ticket is stolen, or if the tickets were actually lost (he had it in his coat pocket, and the wind blew in such a way that things got scrambled). that would be horrible, but there would be sympathy for him.
when you personally put something in the rubbish bin, though, you are giving up all claims to owning it. you can't set a couch out in the student ghetto, then demand the couch back because you found out there was a $500 bill found in the cushions once some students picked up your trash. you trashed it, willfully. it is no longer yours.
you can't have a garage sale -- or take items out to the city dump -- and basically give away old frames, then demand the paintings back once you find out that a frame given away is actually worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Donovan is sh-- out of luck on this one.
konane wrote:
<< The person in whose hands it rests at the time of turning it in for cash is the legal owner. Period. >>
Just like "finders keepers, losers weepers," people here can repeat that as many times as they want, but it's simply not true. While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership. The money in your wallet is also a bearer instrument, but if you dropped a $20 bill and I picked it up before you and tried to keep it nobody here would think I actually owned it simply because it was in my possession or because I found it. The same holds true for other bearer instruments. If somebody else can prove that they are the rightful owner possession by another person is meaningless.
There is one fact in this story that everybody agrees to, and that is that St John found the ticket. That leads to another indisputable fact: somebody else was the owner before St John found it, but the ticket somehow left their possession. The legal issues are the identity of theoriginal owner and how the ticket left their possession. The law varies from place to place, but there is statutory law about ownership of lost property, and somebody who finds lost property is not entitled to ownership unless it goes unclaimed for a period of time defined by law. The law may or may not require an active effort to locate the rightful owner. It's almost certain that St John didn't follow the applicable laws about found property.
The first issue to resolve will be whether or not Donovan has a convincing case that he is really the original owner. Since nobody else has come forward to claim ownership of the ticket, he may be accepted as the original owner even with minimal proof. If Donovan prevails the second issue will be how the ticket left his possession. If he willfully discarded it in the trash then St John definitely has a legitimate claim to ownership, but "willfuly discarded" is a gray area. Deliberately throwing a stack of tickets in the trash without realizing that a winning ticket was accidentally put in that pile probably doesn't mean it was willfully discarded, but that leads to the question of whether or not he really knew the ticket was a winner. Since it's impossible to know for sure what his intent was, the outcome may well be based on a presumption that people don't throw away valuable items and that he didn't intend to discard it.
The job of the lottery department is to uphold their rules, not rule on matters of law, so they'll almost certainly rule in favor of St John unless they decide that the evidence for Donovan's case is compelling. Even so, they'll probably withold payment for a while because they don't want to risk a lawsuit if Donovan wins a court case but can't recover 100% of the money from St John. If Donovan's attorney is working for a contingency fee Donovan's cost for pursuing the case in court should be small enough that he will do so. St John will have to pay legal fees regardless of the outcome. There may not be much evidence on Donovan's side, but St John's case is seriously handicapped since there's no question that the ticket was found and not purchased. If the two of them have any sense at all they'll look at the maximum that either of them could net and work out a compromise from there.
i always thought the difference between the dropped 20 dollar bill and a tossed away 20 dollar bill was a big one. in one case you didn't mean to lose it, it just dropped. it's still yours. or at least, it should be. just like losing the keys to your car doesn't give the finder of those keys possession of the car as well as your keys.
now, if you purposefully dropped that 20 dollar bill in the trash bin, or stuck it in a stripper's g string, it's gone. you gave it away, you threw it away. you can't have it back.
but i'm not a lawyer, so maybe that's not how it works after all. all in all, this thread has been some interesting food for thought.
konane wrote:
<< The person in whose hands it rests at the time of turning it in for cash is the legal owner. Period. >>
Just like "finders keepers, losers weepers," people here can repeat that as many times as they want, but it's simply not true. While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership. The money in your wallet is also a bearer instrument, but if you dropped a $20 bill and I picked it up before you and tried to keep it nobody here would think I actually owned it simply because it was in my possession or because I found it. The same holds true for other bearer instruments. If somebody else can prove that they are the rightful owner possession by another person is meaningless.
There is one fact in this story that everybody agrees to, and that is that St John found the ticket. That leads to another indisputable fact: somebody else was the owner before St John found it, but the ticket somehow left their possession. The legal issues are the identity of theoriginal owner and how the ticket left their possession. The law varies from place to place, but there is statutory law about ownership of lost property, and somebody who finds lost property is not entitled to ownership unless it goes unclaimed for a period of time defined by law. The law may or may not require an active effort to locate the rightful owner. It's almost certain that St John didn't follow the applicable laws about found property.
The first issue to resolve will be whether or not Donovan has a convincing case that he is really the original owner. Since nobody else has come forward to claim ownership of the ticket, he may be accepted as the original owner even with minimal proof. If Donovan prevails the second issue will be how the ticket left his possession. If he willfully discarded it in the trash then St John definitely has a legitimate claim to ownership, but "willfuly discarded" is a gray area. Deliberately throwing a stack of tickets in the trash without realizing that a winning ticket was accidentally put in that pile probably doesn't mean it was willfully discarded, but that leads to the question of whether or not he really knew the ticket was a winner. Since it's impossible to know for sure what his intent was, the outcome may well be based on a presumption that people don't throw away valuable items and that he didn't intend to discard it.
The job of the lottery department is to uphold their rules, not rule on matters of law, so they'll almost certainly rule in favor of St John unless they decide that the evidence for Donovan's case is compelling. Even so, they'll probably withold payment for a while because they don't want to risk a lawsuit if Donovan wins a court case but can't recover 100% of the money from St John. If Donovan's attorney is working for a contingency fee Donovan's cost for pursuing the case in court should be small enough that he will do so. St John will have to pay legal fees regardless of the outcome. There may not be much evidence on Donovan's side, but St John's case is seriously handicapped since there's no question that the ticket was found and not purchased. If the two of them have any sense at all they'll look at the maximum that either of them could net and work out a compromise from there.
i always thought the difference between the dropped 20 dollar bill and a tossed away 20 dollar bill was a big one. in one case you didn't mean to lose it, it just dropped. it's still yours. or at least, it should be. just like losing the keys to your car doesn't give the finder of those keys possession of the car as well as your keys.
now, if you purposefully dropped that 20 dollar bill in the trash bin, or stuck it in a stripper's g string, it's gone. you gave it away, you threw it away. you can't have it back.
but i'm not a lawyer, so maybe that's not how it works after all. all in all, this thread has been some interesting food for thought.
Seems to be a prudent message that if something has importance to you such as a $600 roll of scratch-offs then exercise due care in handling them.
Take them to your auto or home to scratch them in a safe and organized manner.
Go through them carefully at least 3 or more times to verify any potential wins.
Sign winning tickets.
Make photos, scans or copies of winning tickets.
Maintain winning tickets in a safe place even if signed.
Most of all announce the win only after you've claimed it at lottery headquarters, and only if you feel obliged to share the news.
konane wrote:
<< The person in whose hands it rests at the time of turning it in for cash is the legal owner. Period. >>
Just like "finders keepers, losers weepers," people here can repeat that as many times as they want, but it's simply not true. While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership. The money in your wallet is also a bearer instrument, but if you dropped a $20 bill and I picked it up before you and tried to keep it nobody here would think I actually owned it simply because it was in my possession or because I found it. The same holds true for other bearer instruments. If somebody else can prove that they are the rightful owner possession by another person is meaningless.
There is one fact in this story that everybody agrees to, and that is that St John found the ticket. That leads to another indisputable fact: somebody else was the owner before St John found it, but the ticket somehow left their possession. The legal issues are the identity of theoriginal owner and how the ticket left their possession. The law varies from place to place, but there is statutory law about ownership of lost property, and somebody who finds lost property is not entitled to ownership unless it goes unclaimed for a period of time defined by law. The law may or may not require an active effort to locate the rightful owner. It's almost certain that St John didn't follow the applicable laws about found property.
The first issue to resolve will be whether or not Donovan has a convincing case that he is really the original owner. Since nobody else has come forward to claim ownership of the ticket, he may be accepted as the original owner even with minimal proof. If Donovan prevails the second issue will be how the ticket left his possession. If he willfully discarded it in the trash then St John definitely has a legitimate claim to ownership, but "willfuly discarded" is a gray area. Deliberately throwing a stack of tickets in the trash without realizing that a winning ticket was accidentally put in that pile probably doesn't mean it was willfully discarded, but that leads to the question of whether or not he really knew the ticket was a winner. Since it's impossible to know for sure what his intent was, the outcome may well be based on a presumption that people don't throw away valuable items and that he didn't intend to discard it.
The job of the lottery department is to uphold their rules, not rule on matters of law, so they'll almost certainly rule in favor of St John unless they decide that the evidence for Donovan's case is compelling. Even so, they'll probably withold payment for a while because they don't want to risk a lawsuit if Donovan wins a court case but can't recover 100% of the money from St John. If Donovan's attorney is working for a contingency fee Donovan's cost for pursuing the case in court should be small enough that he will do so. St John will have to pay legal fees regardless of the outcome. There may not be much evidence on Donovan's side, but St John's case is seriously handicapped since there's no question that the ticket was found and not purchased. If the two of them have any sense at all they'll look at the maximum that either of them could net and work out a compromise from there.
i always thought the difference between the dropped 20 dollar bill and a tossed away 20 dollar bill was a big one. in one case you didn't mean to lose it, it just dropped. it's still yours. or at least, it should be. just like losing the keys to your car doesn't give the finder of those keys possession of the car as well as your keys.
now, if you purposefully dropped that 20 dollar bill in the trash bin, or stuck it in a stripper's g string, it's gone. you gave it away, you threw it away. you can't have it back.
but i'm not a lawyer, so maybe that's not how it works after all. all in all, this thread has been some interesting food for thought.
Seems to be a prudent message that if something has importance to you such as a $600 roll of scratch-offs then exercise due care in handling them.
Take them to your auto or home to scratch them in a safe and organized manner.
Go through them carefully at least 3 or more times to verify any potential wins.
Sign winning tickets.
Make photos, scans or copies of winning tickets.
Maintain winning tickets in a safe place even if signed.
Most of all announce the win only after you've claimed it at lottery headquarters, and only if you feel obliged to share the news.
Excellent point, K.
I purchased a dozen paper slot machines this past weekend and scratched them with family members. We put the winners in a stack( not very many) and the losers in another.
As a rule I keep all losers for tax purposes, but I also like to look at them one more time.
Well, as I was looking at them that second time, I found a number we missed, and it was worth $10, so the moral is don't throw them in the trash-we all make mistakes and need to be darn sure they are losers before discarding them !!!!!
Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug...
DoubleDown
I have never hear it put like this. DoubleDown.
I could have claimed that I threw my ticket away too. I thought that it was so sad to harass the man about his good find. One man's trash is another's treasure. His ignorance in throwing the ticket away does not give him the right to claim it. HIS NAME ON IT ANYWHERE???? Let me trapst from Alabama to claim that it was mine. How ridicolous! Have any of you heard the story of a person who bought a house and was cleaning out the attic and got rid of a van Gogh? It was sold at a yard sale for $4.00 and the person who bought it was so excited about the tremendous bargain!...blabbed it to the papers, etc....anyway, the one who 'gave away a van Gogh' (sold it at the yard sale for a mere 4 bucks) filed lawsuit claiming they did not realize they had gotten rid of a masterpiece and wanted money for what it was worth.
Another's trash is another's treasure!
In final analysis, the Courts seek fairness. What is Fair here?
Cut and dry? Anyone who has ever dealt with the Courts as either a planitiff or a defendant knows that nothing is cut and dry to the Court. The judge/jury must hear the facts and decide what is fair. It's anyone's guess.
In the final analysis the Courts seek to uphold the law. Fair has nothing to do with it unless the statutes are written with that in mind, which they sometimes are, sometimes aren't.
But those lawyers in a good court aren't going to be allowed to present evidence about abstractions. They're going to have to present evidence pertaining to precisely what the statutes codify. Nothing less, nothing more.
Fair is just a concept with too much elbow room inside it to allow it in a court of law.
Jack
konane wrote:
<< The person in whose hands it rests at the time of turning it in for cash is the legal owner. Period. >>
Just like "finders keepers, losers weepers," people here can repeat that as many times as they want, but it's simply not true. While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership. The money in your wallet is also a bearer instrument, but if you dropped a $20 bill and I picked it up before you and tried to keep it nobody here would think I actually owned it simply because it was in my possession or because I found it. The same holds true for other bearer instruments. If somebody else can prove that they are the rightful owner possession by another person is meaningless.
There is one fact in this story that everybody agrees to, and that is that St John found the ticket. That leads to another indisputable fact: somebody else was the owner before St John found it, but the ticket somehow left their possession. The legal issues are the identity of theoriginal owner and how the ticket left their possession. The law varies from place to place, but there is statutory law about ownership of lost property, and somebody who finds lost property is not entitled to ownership unless it goes unclaimed for a period of time defined by law. The law may or may not require an active effort to locate the rightful owner. It's almost certain that St John didn't follow the applicable laws about found property.
The first issue to resolve will be whether or not Donovan has a convincing case that he is really the original owner. Since nobody else has come forward to claim ownership of the ticket, he may be accepted as the original owner even with minimal proof. If Donovan prevails the second issue will be how the ticket left his possession. If he willfully discarded it in the trash then St John definitely has a legitimate claim to ownership, but "willfuly discarded" is a gray area. Deliberately throwing a stack of tickets in the trash without realizing that a winning ticket was accidentally put in that pile probably doesn't mean it was willfully discarded, but that leads to the question of whether or not he really knew the ticket was a winner. Since it's impossible to know for sure what his intent was, the outcome may well be based on a presumption that people don't throw away valuable items and that he didn't intend to discard it.
The job of the lottery department is to uphold their rules, not rule on matters of law, so they'll almost certainly rule in favor of St John unless they decide that the evidence for Donovan's case is compelling. Even so, they'll probably withold payment for a while because they don't want to risk a lawsuit if Donovan wins a court case but can't recover 100% of the money from St John. If Donovan's attorney is working for a contingency fee Donovan's cost for pursuing the case in court should be small enough that he will do so. St John will have to pay legal fees regardless of the outcome. There may not be much evidence on Donovan's side, but St John's case is seriously handicapped since there's no question that the ticket was found and not purchased. If the two of them have any sense at all they'll look at the maximum that either of them could net and work out a compromise from there.
i always thought the difference between the dropped 20 dollar bill and a tossed away 20 dollar bill was a big one. in one case you didn't mean to lose it, it just dropped. it's still yours. or at least, it should be. just like losing the keys to your car doesn't give the finder of those keys possession of the car as well as your keys.
now, if you purposefully dropped that 20 dollar bill in the trash bin, or stuck it in a stripper's g string, it's gone. you gave it away, you threw it away. you can't have it back.
but i'm not a lawyer, so maybe that's not how it works after all. all in all, this thread has been some interesting food for thought.
I'd rather stick a $20 in a stripper's g-string than spend it on annuity-only tickets.
Gamblers spend their money on games of chance, if you don't like the game stop playing.
While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership.
I agree with this statement. Every law or rule, no matter how clearly stated, can be challenged because there is often a gray area. The woman who stole a purse and claimed the winning ticket or the clerk in AZ who cashed in a ticket she stole were also bearers, but they weren't the legal owners.
While it may be presumed that the person in possession of a bearer instrument is the owner, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that simple possession of a bearer instrument, or any other property, is proof of ownership.
I agree with this statement. Every law or rule, no matter how clearly stated, can be challenged because there is often a gray area. The woman who stole a purse and claimed the winning ticket or the clerk in AZ who cashed in a ticket she stole were also bearers, but they weren't the legal owners.
Possession is nine tenths of the law, so it becomes the true owners responsibility to prove that they are the owner.
The legal issue boils down to only a few points:
Seems to me if anyone has a claim, other than the dumpster diver, it's the store ownership. Assuming the 'bearer instrument' status of the ticket doesn't hold water. Not the guy who gave them to the store. The store owned those tickets from the time he discarded them. There's evidently no question of where the tickets were found.
And, in fact, they had signs out about loitering, which might well include dumpster diving. If a case was introduced I think they'd have a middling shot at winning it on the premise that the dumpster diver stole property of value from the store.
But the guy who bought the tickets is two layers away from ownership of them. No case could be made suggesting the store didn't own the tickets when they were found. They were legally responsible for them, along with all their other trash. Holding it in a sanitary manner, disposing of it properly. They possessed it in a completely legal way, as demonstrated by the fact that if they disposed of it improperly they could be legally cited for doing so.
One of the risks for all dumpster divers when they take items from garbage receptacles, is the criminal reality of being accused of theft. It usually doesn't happen, but it can.
Jack
The store was aware of the dumpster diver's find and relinquished all claims to the Lottery Ticket by allowing the Dumpster Diver to remove the Ticket from the premises.
Do you know that for a fact, Raven62, or are you just guessing?
It's clear they didn't have him arrested for theft. But the legal question of whether they tacitly consented to allowing him ownership of the ticket seems to me to be entirely up for grabs.
They certainly have him on the security camera taking the ticket.
I'd bet if the dumpster diver wins his court case against the original purchaser his legal battles over the money haven't even begun. And the party of the second part definitely has a better claim than the purchaser.
Do you have proof otherwise?
I don't need proof otherwise, Raven.
I'm not the guy with the ticket.
We have no idea what transpired between him and the store staff when all that went on. But the store has it all on camera, which will qualify as proof.
The lawyers are going to have their day on this one. And I'd say there's a middling chance the dumpster diver will walk away being glad he ain't in jail before it's over.
If he didn't specifically ask permission to take that ticket, and if the store manager didn't specifically give it to him I think he could have a serious problem.
Jack
Were the Police called? Was the Dumpster Diver Arrested? Does The Dumpster Diver still have possession of the Ticket?
Probably all insignificant where a lot of money's concerned, Raven.
Someone pointed out that before people make pronouncements about legalities they ought to be aware of what the laws say. This one's complicated enough so's, unless you and I are lawyers, we don't have a clue of what the outcomes will be.
Rhetorical questions won't be deciding factors
I'm not a lawyer. I'm just an old country boy in New Mexico
Court Cases have nothing to do with Truth or Justice. If the Dumpster Diver didn't retrieve the Ticket from the Trash Bin the Ticket would now be in some land fill somewhere, Lost forever.
You're restating the obvious, Raven, and the irrelevant. Court cases are going to be where it's decided where truth and justice are to be found in this instance.
Maybe you won't like it, maybe I won't like it, but it's reality and it's stamped firmly there in civil and criminal codes.
Thank goodness.
Life would be fairer sometimes, sometimes more filled with warm huggies, if we just went by gut-feel concepts of truth and justice as you and I percieve them. But there'd also be a lot more of what anyone who doesn't subscribe to your particular views on important matters would consider downright abusive.
It's all we've got, those criminal and civil codes, and the US Constitution. We need a lot more solid adherence to all of them, not less, just for a lot of feelgood.
Why is this thread always bumped up? The prize was annuity-only. We should be talking about prizes paid in lump sum.