SEVIERVILLE, Tenn. — The proceeds from a winning Powerball ticket have split a Sevierville, Tennessee, couple who have two children together and are expecting a third, according to documents filed in Sevier County Circuit Court.
Pamela Jo Newsome has filed a complaint seeking an injunction to keep Mark Saul from spending any of the $200,000 from a winning Powerball ticket purchased in Pigeon Forge.
According to her complaint, Newsome is carrying their third child together, although they have never married. Newsome lives on River Road; Saul lives in the Budget Inn on the Parkway in Sevierville.
Saul was at Newsome's residence the week of Jan. 11, when he said he wanted to go the store, according to Newsome.
"The defendant asked the plaintiff for money, and the plaintiff provided $6 to the defendant. The defendant mentioned buying lottery tickets, and the plaintiff instructed the defendant to buy a two liter drink that the defendant wanted, and to buy Powerball lottery tickets with the remainder," the complaint says.
Saul doesn't have a driver's license, and Newsome said another man who was present at the house drove him to the store, where he saw Saul purchase the tickets.
They couple later learned their ticket matched the first five numbers chosen in the lottery, but not the Powerball number, meaning they fell short of the main prize but won $200,000.
They first went to collect the money together in Knoxville, but were informed at the lottery office there that they would have to go to Nashville.
The next day, Jan 24, Newsome found that Saul had disappeared with the winning ticket, and she could not reach him on his cell phone.
She eventually learned that he had gone to the Nashville lottery office with his brother, who is an attorney, and claimed the proceeds.
She accuses him of theft, fraud, recision of purported contract and other civil claims, and asks that a judge issue an injunction preventing Saul from spending the money. She is asking for a jury to award her all the of the winnings, along with punitive damages and attorney's fees.
The proceeds go to the person in possession of the ticket or the person whose signature it bears, said Kym Gerlock, Tennessee spokesperson for the Multi-State Lottery Association.
"We always encourage our contestants to sign their tickets as soon as they get them," she said.
"[The ticket is] a bare instrument. Anybody that finds it, it's theirs as long as there's no signature on it."
The winner must also provide identification when they bring in the ticket, she said. Powerball will divide the proceeds however the winner asks.
Thanks to amsoly41 for the tip.
"[The ticket is] a bare instrument. Anybody that finds it, it's theirs as long as there's no signature on it."
I think she meant to say "The ticket is a bearer instrument",not a bare instrument.I surely wouldn't let anyone put their signature on my bare instrument
.
I guess money really can change people....Sad story,but things happen..
It seems like they might not have had a very good relationship to begin with.
I agree!!!
I HOPE THAT AT LEAST HE DOES RIGHT BY HIS KIDS! I HAVE A FEELING THIS IS GOING TO TURN UGLY.
How dumb can one get??? Not signing the Ticket right away !!! Duh..... What would have happened if it had been 10 million!! I'll bet her children wouldn't see it.
The attorneys are going to be the winners here. Perhaps a little common sense would help. I believe that he is the legal owner of the ticket. I would sue her for all of the costs associated with any legal action in this situation.
Too many people think that they have the RIGHT to what other people have. A former coworker of mine told me to my face that if he was "down and out", he has the RIGHT to steal from me.
These people seem to live anything but a stable lifestyle. I feel sorry for the children.
There was nothing dumb about this...it was HE who wanted to buy the lottery tickets, NOT HER. She may have loaned him the money in order to buy the tickets, but it seems as though she wasn't totally into the lottery thing as she empasized for him to buy the drinks first...and if there is anything left over you can buy the lottery tickets. Buying the lottery tickets seemed almost like an afterthought to her whereas it was perhaps HIS primary reason for wanting to go to the store in the first place.
It is up to him to do as he pleases with the proceeds. I think her injunction is baseless since it appears there was not an agreement to share in the winnings even though she did lend him the money to get the tickets. Sure, since she is the mother of his children (or child), the right thing to do might be to break her off a little something something. But she really doesn't have any legal right to the winnings. For instance, if you were to give a street begger a few dollars and just happened to give him/her a business card and that begger used that money to buy lottery tickets and won the jackpot and called you to thank you for giving him money in his darkest hour, you would not be able to claim any part of that begger's winnings because it is not the money that bought the ticket that gives one the claim rights...it's the possession of the winning ticket. That is why I will never participate in any office or work lottery pools.
There is nothing wrong with living in a motel...Patricia Frierson who won $90M California SuperLotto jackpot years ago was actually living in a motel when she won.
Although I wouldn't want to live exclusively in something like that, many people practically live in hotels for their jobs. The high end ones are quite nice, but anything less than 3 star hotel is only good for rendevouz of the sordid kind...or if you are single and just want a clean bed, hot shower & A/C...although the TV entertainment may be dicey.
It's unfortunate, he shouldn't have run off but legally he's allowed to. But that's one of the reasons I never tell people when I'm buying tickets. I've had everyone from co-workers, bosses, to even my parents tell me "Did you hear the jackpot's getting pretty big, I just picked up some tickets!" and I'll just say "Oh, thats cool, I might pick one up if I got the time" often times I already got one tucked away in my wallet :P Asking for money to buy lotto tickets is a bad idea, if you win you know will be on the hook, whether their argument makes sense or not..If I dont have money I just dont play, I'd rather give some $ to people close to me as a good deed, as opposed to doing it because I feel I owe them.
That guy probably thought "Uh oh, I owe her big-time," felt guilty and took off. Who knows, maybe he owes her money or child support, and figured when all was said and done he wouldn't see a cent of it. Unfortunately, he probably won't now that the court is involved. If he had bought them himself he would probably have been less likely to take off knowing he could share it on his terms.
They should settle this on the Maury Show, lol. But i have to agree with the guy, he went in there and brought it, she didnt. Lets hope he does his job and pay child support lol
That is some cold S***!!!! If they end up in court the judge should rule that all of the money that is in question be put into a trust for the children to be divided equally between all of them when they turn 21, and neither of the parents can touch it!!! The judge should also rule that both parents should contribute a set amount apiece to the trust so that the kids will have something when they come of age. It's obvious that these parents are only good for bumping-ugly and reproducing.
Maybe old dude thought he could do like that black guy did who won on the lottery a few years ago and tried to pretend to be dead or something and ran out on his wife and she tracked him down and it was tied up in court. When I saw that on the news I laughed for days!!
Or the white woman who won and called herself divorcing her husband of 20 plus years then cashing in her winning lottery ticket, only to have the judge take all of her millions and give the whole thing to the ex-husband. That one was 100% pure poetic justice with a swiftness.
The true nature of a person comes out when they receive an amount of money that is larger than their paycheck. Go figure.
If I gave a friend money to pay and pick up my car from the repair shop, does that then become his car?
She's stupid for having three children by a man who didn't care enough about her to marry her and be a father to his kids. Shock, shock he took her winning ticket for himself, haven't he been taking for himself all along. This man didn't ask her for a loan to get the tickets and the man who took him to the store knows the truth. I should be on the jury, not only would I make him give back the winnings for the ticket, she should ask the judge to set up child support payments, which I bet he is not paying. You would think the people at the first lottery stop would tell her to sign her ticket. It would be nice if both agreed to start a college trust fund for their kids. Minus taxes that would leave less than $50,000 per child.
The money didn't change this guy a single bit. It just gave him the chance to show who he's been all along.
Who bought the ticket or who signed it, doesn't necessarily matter. The story isn't clear, and we have no idea what their intent was at the time the ticket was bought, or how much of her side is, or isn't true. It's possible that the money was a loan, but if it was, why did she give him instructions on what to do with it? It's also possible that they had some pre-existing plan to buy tickets, and that's why she told him to spend the rest of the money on tickets. In that case he may have been acting as her agent when he bought the ticket and that would make her the owner. Of course, proving what happened and what their intent was is likely to be difficult. If she's really lucky, perhaps something that would help her was said on the first attempt to collect the prize, but I wouldn't count on it. OTOH, she may have a chance at having some of the money seized to make sure he pays child support
Alright, it looks like a lot of people are reading into this story or misinterpreting what actually happened. So let's break it down because aside from if this guy owes back child support (that is, presuming this woman has actually filed to receive it), that is the only thing that he would LEGALLY owe.
Saul was at Newsome's residence the week of Jan. 11, when he said he wanted to go the store, according to Newsome.
"The defendant asked the plaintiff for money, and the plaintiff provided $6 to the defendant. The defendant mentioned buying lottery tickets, and the plaintiff instructed the defendant to buy a two liter drink that the defendant wanted, and to buy Powerball lottery tickets with the remainder," the complaint says.
So looking at what was said and written, it was the GUY who wanted to go to the store in the first place and the only thing HE mentioned buying was LOTTERY TICKETS. It was the PLANTIFF (WOMAN) who told the GUY to buy a two liter drink (man only people who want soda pop on the cheap would buy those two liter bottles...those things are terrible as you have to drink it all up soon after opening it or else it will go flat quick fast and in a hurry...uhg nasty!) first and, as if instructing a child, to buy the tickets with the remainder. So to summarize, broke ass GUY wanted to buy lottery tickets; MOTHERLIKE PLANTIFF wanted to ensure that HE bought something tangible instead of just all Powerball tickets and gave HIM the money to buy those items. I don't see her saying that SHE wanted HIM to buy HER some lottery tickets. So the tickets are HIS bought with HER money (a non-implied loan or gift).
They couple later learned their ticket matched the first five numbers chosen in the lottery, but not the Powerball number, meaning they fell short of the main prize but won $200,000.
Now this appears to be HER point of view because the truth of the matter is whether HE shared with HER that it was a winning ticket, IT is actually HIS ticket...read on.
They first went to collect the money together in Knoxville, but were informed at the lottery office there that they would have to go to Nashville.
The next day, Jan 24, Newsome found that Saul had disappeared with the winning ticket, and she could not reach him on his cell phone.
She eventually learned that he had gone to the Nashville lottery office with his brother, who is an attorney, and claimed the proceeds.
So it looks like at first SHE wanted to accompany HIM to collect the winnings, but if SHE really was a lottery player (after all she had the home and he was staying in some low budget motel), she would have known by referencing the lottery website where THEY would have needed to go in order to collect the winnings. I imagine that GUY just asked where the nearest lottery office and ALLOWED HER to accompany HIM there (seeing as how HE didn't have a license to drive...so that's makes sense.).
So after going to the wrong lottery office, GUY had a chance to talk to HIS brother (the attorney) who probably told HIM that he would be willing to take HIM to the Nashville office to collect the winnings...and perhaps that given the circumstances at how HE came to buy that ticket, that HIS girl might raise a stink and try to have her name included on the ticket and check. So seeing how SMART GUY (I say Smart because HE apparently had enough sense to NOT marry ol' girl even though HE has plugged her up 3 times and to not answer HIS cellphone when ol' girl tried to call HIM as HE was enroute or already in Nashville getting that check minus the withheld taxes) wanted to maintain HIS self-preservation stance, HE took HIS Brother's offer of ride assistance. SHE is pissed off that SHE couldn't run her game to get included on the check, or to watch over HIM as HE went down to the corner payday check cashing place to cash the check and to be able to then demand how ever much of it that she wanted. To that I say this GUY was SMART for forseeing what would have happened in that instance.
If HE must pay child support, so be it. Opening a college fund would be admirable, but doing so doesn't guarantee that those funds plus whatever capital gains, dividends and interest will be there when the children get to college age (presuming they just attend public school up until that time) as the custodian can raid the fund before that time. Yes she could! It happens all the time with people in the lower economic group that find themselves living paycheck to paycheck...so they think...hmmm, I got this money sitting over here for my kids...let me tap into that.
If anything, it would be good for the GUY to invest in himself to boost up HIS earning power and a prudent thing to do would be to also invest a small portion of those winnings and use some portion to find a better housing arrangement. Don't know why ol' boy doesn't have his drivers license...could have never had one or more probable, ol' boy has a suspended license for whatever reason...DUI...no insurance...too many moving violations.
So you can see, the ticket possession issue is clear cut. There are other things that are murky. Ol' girl has no basis for this injunction, and I would expect it to be thrown out of court...of course, we never hear about how things of this nature are eventually resolved unless you live in the same area as the drama (like the Idaho $1M dollar ticket the customer didn't want, so was it the clerks or the stores...the Ohio Mega Millions group that tried to exclude 3 or 4 people who had contributed to the previous draw but were out of town but the winnings from that previous draw was used to purchase the numbers from which the winning ticket came!).
Agree with KY Floyd who has a keen legal mind but plays devil's advocate sometimes
and FJA. Depends on how evidence is weighed in court.
If he pays child support and is in arrearage or if she receives government aid, child support will be deducted from the lottery win.
For the kids???
Otherwise there is no legal reason why the Judge would order the money to be put into a trust for the kids. Kids are not entitled to live a rich life. They can go to work like everyone else when they turn 18.
So sad, Money is the root of all evil. What's up with the brother that's an attorney? Is there such a thing of Oath? or Morally Wrong? Go figure?
if you don't trust each other in a relationship then why would you trust the other with possible millions! what a goober !
Ladyg, you might want to pick up a Bible (or your Bible) and read it again because you are wrong about the saying, "Money is the root of all evil." The Bible actually says, "The LOVE OF money is the root of all evil." Money in and of itself is neither good or bad...it's how a person views it and due to that view (i.e. love it, like it, ect.) that will affect their subsequent behavior. A person who LOVES money over people may have no problem stealing, killing, or prostituting themselves (and this applies to men as well as women so back off feminists) just to get it...and once they have it, they may spend it but they also will likely hoard it and have a higher than mighty attitude.
Now I like money...money can allow me to do good things. I'll work to earn it, but I'll also take a windfall anyday. But I will always treat people as I would want to be treated. I could never envision stealing or killing just to obtain money.
But back on point...there was nothing wrong with what his brother the attorney did in this case...he was being a brother and I know that if that was my brother and I, my brother would look out for my best interests just like his brother was doing for him. If you have a problem with the fact that it was the man in this case who wanted to buy the ticket and not share with his girlfriend, what would you say if the script was flipped and it was the woman who had borrowed the money and bought the tickets and did not want to share the winnings with her boyfriend...I imagine you would say, "YOU GO GIRL...DO YOUR OWN THANG AND DROP THAT CHUMP!" If a woman wins, it's perceived to be all her money; and if a guy wins, it's only half his money...that is just simply wrong. If woman want equal pay for equal work, this is what I say:
1) In tennis, the women want equal prize money as the men...so that being the case, I think the women should be required to play best of 5 sets like the men instead of just 3.
2) In golf and basketball, the television and live draw would have to equal what the men produce in order to justify equal pay...let me tell you, Annika, Lorena, and Michelle Wie combined can't produce the draw that Tiger does on the PGA Tour (I for one know that I won't watch any non-major women's golf tournament, but I will watch ANY tournament that TW plays.).
3) In regular work, it's a given fact that when you take time off from your work that your earnings do not keep up with those who remain on the job working, and that applies to men as well as women. I think the fact that women take more time off due to multiple pregnancies is what causes the pay differential. But if pay is supposed to be based on one's performance ON THE JOB, I don't think women who don't do anything related to their work tasks while on maternity leave have a viable argument to have their pay continue to increase along with their colleagues who are actually picking up the slack and perhaps working longer hours just to cover for the absent mom. Government employment is different from private sector employment...Govt. employment heavily factors in TIME in rank, time on the job whereas private sector heavily emphasizes PERFORMANCE. So if a person is not present to perform even though their employment time ticker is still ticking, I don't think that person deserves a pay raise in the private sector. So if anyone truly has a beef with this, maybe they need to pursue a job working for the federal or state government where pay is based on job grade level and time.
OldSchoolPa:
"What would you say if the script was flipped and it was the woman who had borrowed the money and bought the tickets and did not want to share the winnings with her boyfriend...
I imagine you would say, "YOU GO GIRL...DO YOUR OWN THANG AND DROP THAT CHUMP!"
If a woman wins, it's perceived to be all her money; and if a guy wins, it's only half his money...that is just simply wrong. "
=============
So true. And my original point was that they are not married -- they do not even live together in spite of the children. She has a house and he lives at the budget motel. She apparently has a car and he does not -- it's not "their" car. So, it's not "their" ticket. It's HIS ticket.
Now he will have to pay some more child support. And the remainder of the money will go fast -- will disappear before he knows it --- and he will probably end up living at the motel again. UNLESS he uses the money to go back to school and get a degree like his brother, the attorney.
That's the sad thing. He now has in his hands the ability to change his life, but I bet he just spends it on cars or something and when it's all gone he will say life is unfair.
And if you have 3 kids by some guy, you better marry him. No telling when he might get lucky in the lottery.
But that shouldn't be the reason. You should marry him because it's the right thing to do.
"Alright, it looks like a lot of people are reading into this story or misinterpreting what actually happened."
Yes, they are, and that's exactly what you do in most of the points you try to make.
"the only thing HE mentioned buying was LOTTERY TICKETS. It was the PLANTIFF (WOMAN) who told the GUY to buy a two liter drink"
Acording to the plaintiff she told him to buy the drink "the defendant wanted." If that's the case the defendant obviously expressed his desire for said drink. In her version it's also significant that the money appears to have been provided before the defendant mentioned buying lottery tickets. There is nothing in the story to tell us his reason for wanting to go to the store, and there's nothing that tells us who first suggested buying lottery tickets. If you want to make assumptions, it's equally valid to assume that his "mention" of lottery tickets, which came after being given the money, was to ask if he should pick up the tickets that she wanted.
"she empasized for him to buy the drinks first...and if there is anything left over you can buy the lottery tickets."
No, she allowed him to buy the drink, and required him to spend the rest on the tickets. Perhaps she knew that he otherwise would have spent it on beer or chewing tobacco.
"Now this appears to be HER point of view because the truth of the matter"
Of course it's her point of view. The article is about her legal actions, and her allegations supporting her claims. As for "the truth of the matter," the only factual information we can count on is that the defendant isthe one who took delivery of the tickets, one of which was a winner, and the woman has initiated legal action. None of us actually has aclue what either of them intended, or what really happened.
"It is up to him to do as he pleases with the proceeds."
Only if the money was a loan. Her version meets the requirements for a legal contract, wherein he bought the tickets on her behalf in exchange for the consideration of the drink.
"if SHE really was a lottery player she would have known byreferencing the lottery website where THEY would have needed to go inorder to collect the winnings."
Now you're just being stupid. Since they went together it seems clear that neither one of them knew that the prize couldn't be claimed at a regional office. The only thing that indicates is that neither one of them knew about the finer points of claiming large prizes. The only thing about going to the wrong office that might be relevant is that it may indicate an intent to claim the prize jointly.
"So you can see, the ticket possession issue is clear cut."
Nobody who actually understands what they've read can see that based on the story, assuming that by "possession" you actually mean ownership. If the truth comes out ownership may be clear, but as claimed by the plaintiff it's likely to be her ticket. Any interest that he has is limited to what she has given him. It appears that she admits to giving him an interest, but if she can prove that he attempted to defraud her she may succeed in revoking his interest.
As I said in my previous post, I expect that she'll have difficulty proving her claim, but lack of proof doesn't mean her version isn't the truth. Unless there is some other evidence, this is just another typical "he said, she said" story, and those of us who weren't there have no way of knowing who deserves the prize.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play Lottery... It is ambiguous as to who the lottery tickets were being purchased for. Defendant first mentioned buying lottery tickets. If he bought other items beside soda and tickets, then he was going there anyway (why? just for soda? why asked her for $?), even before she pitched in. The question would be did she mention Powerball or did he decide that when Plaintiff asked, and who she meant to buy them for, him, her, or both? Plaintiff did not say "for (herself)" other than the soda; only to buy some Powerball tickets with the extra $. We need clarification on what *exactly* he said about lottery tickets. He can easily claim that the tickets were interpreted as a gift to him and would not have bought them otherwise. He should have asked, who are these for, what if it wins, even after bringing the tickets home. Right now he's legally entitled to keep the ticket because she can't prove what her intentions were or even exactly what she said initially, but he's morally obligated to share some but not all of it.
I don't know how someone lives in a motel. The cost per night seems like it would be higher than rent in a given area, no?
I assume these were QP which depends on very exact timing of pressing the button on the terminal at the exact time that set of # was whizzing through the computer that printed the tickets. Had anything been the slightest different there would probably be no winning ticket. Asking "...for me?" would have shifted the timing by a few seconds or more. I usually pick my own numbers with my own algorithms. If someone gives me $ to buy tickets I assume if it wins it's 100% theirs and up to them if they share.
If he was willing to give her up and the children for $200K, he could have just not mentioned having a winning ticket and then quietly disappeared.
He should have played in a state where he could have remained anonymous. This is just another reason why people should remain anonymous when it comes to buying lottery tickets.
You noticed that too, eh ?
It always does, and most of the time for the worst.
Outside of the legalities, what are we doing in life ? What are we being reduced to ?
I'm married, so *I* buy a ticket, *I* win, and my wife theoretically would get nothing, since she didn't physically purchase the ticket ????
What if my wife buys a ticket while I am doing other home projects ? If it wins, I suppose she gets it all and I get none ?
Forget the fact that these two were not married, married or not it seems to me there should be an implied contract, and if the guy is dumb enough to say 'it was her money that bought these, we always buy them together', then he loses automatically. Or he should, but knowing how messed up the court system is, who knows...
I hope he wins all the money, and I hope she cleans his clock in back child support, current child support, medical bills associated with past and the current pregnancy, and future child support payments.
The guy should have just gone back to her, because now he's going to get even less than he planned.
I can only hope.
its a big win for the lawyer type guys
the fact that he lives at Budget Inn and she lives at a residence speaks volumes. I too hope she drains every penny she can from him; he sounds like such a great person