Father died day after winning
The family of an Australian man who won almost $2 million in a lottery and died the next day has been fighting over who is entitled to the money.
Townsville Supreme Court has heard the fighting between Lajos Szanto's four children occurred over the wording of their father's will and whether or not he had bought the ticket for himself.
Lajos Szanto won $1,818,181.82 on February 13 last year, but was not able to enjoy his winnings after he died a day later, having bought the ticket earlier in the week.
His son Alexander Szanto last week took his siblings to court to determine whether he was entitled to share the money with brother Stephen Szanto and sister Margie Szanto, or whether the prize would go entirely to his sister Christina Aston and brother-in-law James Aston, who owned the home their father was living in.
The trial came as another unresolved dispute between the siblings goes through the courts to determine whether Lajos Szanto bought the ticket for himself or to share with son Stephen as well.
In the latest trial, Justice Kerry Cullinane had to determine what the ticket, which was found in Lajos Szanto's granny flat under the family's Townsville home, in far north Queensland, was defined as under the man's will.
One clause entitled "all furniture and chattels" in the home were to go to daughter Christina and her husband.
However, the next clause in the will said "the rest and residue of my estate both real and personal of whatsoever nature of any kind" was to go to his other three children to be shared equally.
The court heard of 11 previous cases before the judge reached a decision.
Justice Cullinane decided the prize money did not fall within the first clause and was deemed to be part of Lajos Szanto's "residual estate", meaning it was to be inherited equally by Alexander, Stephen and Margie Szanto.
However, the family feud is still not over, with the courts yet to decide on the separate matter of whether Lajos Szanto bought the ticket with the intention to share it with Stephen Szanto.
Such a sad story his children should be ashamed of themselves for fighting like this.....the right thing to do is to split it between all the children......
RIP Mr. Szanto's.....
Very sad indeed, RIP Mr. Szantos
It's hard to judge something like this.
Were James and Christina trying to screw the others out of their rightful inheritance or did they feel they didn't deserve it because they never helped out taking care of Dad and had no use for him until he won the lottery? Maybe James and Christina had amassed considerable debt taking care of him and the others refused to contribute, who knows?
Either way, it's terrible to see a family torn apart because of money.
Family is far and away more important than money.
This story remind me of Analis Morisette's song:"And old man,turn 98,he won the lottery and died the next day" LOL
well, it seems that money changes some peplo, for the bad.. too sad.. and they are going to be sorry..
Another case of money tearing up a family. So Sad.
more and more it doesnt matter what a will states. the court will over rule in a more equitable way . especially among siblings.
even it it stated all to go to 1 child, the court will over rule it.
people must think lawyers are hard up and need the cash.
Gosh yes!
They are his children, so they should split it equally, especially since his will basically says so.
What, is the one daughter trying to say that becuase the ticket was under or in the furniture that she should get it? Maybe I mis read that, but bottom line is the ticket is not "furniture" so it should be split between the kids.
The will is clear, the daughter get the furniture and everything else is to be share equally among the other children regardless of what it is.
I took a refresher business writing/grammar class this winter and the instructor said that this type of legal battle caused the rules to change with the use of a comma in front of the word "and" in a series.
Janet, Mark and Sharon
Janet thought she should get 33 1/3 and that Mark and Sharon should split the other 33 between them. So the comma rule was changed to put a comma in front of the word and.
Janet, Mark, and Sharon
Rd, until I read your commetary, as others should as well, its clear that your scenario does shed a different light on this. The issue though is, despite the scenario did the Father still want all his children included? Bottom line, it appears from the will he did want that. Maybe in their younger years they helped their mother and therefore were tapped out. Who knows. I do know this, the man left this world with children alive and some money to spare, no more a blessing can bestowed a person.
And each of the kids should sit in a corner for a five minute time out! Thats my ruling and I'm sticking to it :)
I've actually seen a couple scenarios like that with families of people I know . Deadbeat relatives who wanted nothing to do with old mamaw or papaw until they heard she or he passed and were right there immediately with their hands out for "their share". Sad situation.
if the dad was living wit his sister and her husban.i tink the court should let them have some of the money 2,y because they were the 1 to take care of her brother not the kids and if there dad ment any ting 2 them he would have been living wit one of them and not his sister now the kids here daddy leave money they want 2 play like the good kids no i dont tink so
Wow, there's even sibling rivalry in other countries. We often hear about family hostilities in the United States, but we're accustomed to hearing about jealousy here in our own backyard.
Perhaps, the deceased intended to make changes in his will, including some members, and leaving some out -- but that's a bit little too late, unfortunately.
Post members, if you don't have an iron clad Will, make one; and if you intend on making changes, don't waste time, do it now. Or better yet, leave $1.00 to each family member and give the rest to foundations, charities, or close friends, as long as you're legally sane and competent to do so.
Finally, live each day as if it were your last; life is too short for drama.
"...as long as you're legally sane..."
Somebody should call tiggs and inform him his will is not valid.
it should be 60-40 split in favor of the ones that were stuck looking after him...
If he could see how they're all behaving now he's gone, I bet he'd rather the whole lot went to the local dogs home, and to heck with the greedy bludgers!
The only thing certain about this story is that it's a badly written will that almost certainly didn't considerthe possibility that his financial situation might change. I'm inclined to agree that he intended an equitable split amongst all four children, but that really depends on the relative values of the two types of property listed in the will. If he actually wanted his estate split evenly amongst all four the will should have said so plainly instead of splitting the estate into two pieces and then distributing those pieces separately.
The daughter apparently claimed that the ticket was chattel, a legal term for personal property. That would arguably make the ticket part of his chattels, and perhaps that would have been the court's ruling had the will simply left chattels to the daughter and "the rest and residue of my estate" to the remaining heirs, but that's not what the will said. Chattels definitely includes the furniture, and it also includes some of his estate that was "personal of whatsoever nature" that was left to the other children. The will limited the chattels that were to be left to the daughter to those that were in the house, and instead of simply saying "chattels" it said "furniture and chattels". That suggests that his intent was simply to leave her the possessions that he generally kept in the house. If those items had included a check book or a passbook to a savings account she wouldn't be entitled to the contents of the accounts, since what was in the hosue was merely a record of property that was located elsewhere. The lottery ticket is essentailly the same as any other record of financial property located elsewhere. The ticket itself is just a piece of paper, and the judge obviously considered the prize money won with the ticket to be part of the estate covered under the second clause.
Screw the "kids" that didn't take care of him !
I hope that one or more of the 4 has the brains to dump the troubles on the others and walk away. Let
them fight over it. The money is a curse in this situation and can only cause more hardship and
division. I guess Christina and her husband think that getting the things in his quarters meant getting
all of the money too. Greed gets in the way when money is involved, I've seen normal families turned up-
side down over money and dysfunctional family relationships become more dysfunctional over money.
Everyone wants their share and many times their self-estimated share is grossly over-estimated because
one thinks they've done more and deserve more.
The guy had the foresight to create a will. Instead of painting it shades of grey, it should be black and
white. They are ALL entitled to what was designated...how is that so difficult? The one that owns the
house, keeps the things that were in his flat. The others get the remainder. The winnings get split evenly.
The courts should have taken into deeper consideration the will was made before he won.....before he had
a windfall of $1.8 million to consider. It seems where they are now is dividing the jp amongst 3 siblings
as was originally stated in his will (remainder of estate) That does not seem fair or right to me either.
If fair and just is the ultimate goal, split it 4 ways and let everyone go on their merry way.
If it were me, I'd wash my hands of the whole thing and say keep it, have a nice life and leave me alone.
A case isn't heard 11 times unless one of the parties is not satisfied with a prior result. There were, most
definitely, problems before the father died...I'll bet one of them was who would take Dad in. I'll bet every
single one of them would have jumped at the chance if they knew in the near future, dad would be the
winner of a $1.8 Million dollar jackpot. Poor dad is probably much better off dead.
out here squabbling over an estate the lawyer fees comes form the estate not the pocket of the complaintant. so 11 hearings is easy when you have a 1.8 mill fund to leech to pay for lawyers.
i say fight it out till theres no money left.
Excellent idea savagegoose!
and it's not even THAT much to be split so many people! why not the even division - why bother with the second part of the lawsuit? you get the furnishings and then split the rest - what is so hard? I do understand the siblings for challenging the couple if they were in fact trying to hog the money - this is what their parent wanted and it should be honored
It's such a shame that they are fighting like this....why is money the root of all evil?
Money is not the root of all evil.
The love of money is the root of all evil. (1 Timothy 6:10)
Oh well, when we each create our signed holographic or pour-over Will later today, we will use the phrase "chattel" and "all contents within house." Sheesh!l
I was gonna get some chattel to raise one time but the sawbones told me to cut back on red meat.
Then on top of that you gotta worry about chattel rustlers.
Ain't worth it.
I changed my mind and now agree with KYFLOOD's summary.
Yet, if only the four children could have agreed to sign the back of the lottery ticket AND shared EVEN percentage splits of the lottery ticket's jackpot share they could have kept the ticket OUT of their father's estate (unless, of course, he had already signed the back of the lottery ... whoops!). Or, this passing away might have been smoother if the father had NO will, because then probate court would have handled and distributed even percentage to each of his four children (unless the father had MORE than the four children mentioned in this article, who knows)! The article doesn't state if the father was in any way disabled or ill. It is possible that he simply was not too advanced in years, lived below his daughter's living quareters, owned and drove his own car daily, and paid his own utilities and a portion of the whole house's mortgage or rent, and never required any medical care or pampering from the child who lived above him during that time.
Why, lottery post readers, does this article not surprise me -- another family in financial turmoil, again? When will it ever end? Look, unless you put $1.00 or more in the lottery kitty, expect nothing.
I am not talking about mothers, fathers, disabled family members -- they are the less fortunate. All you healthy; strong; deceptive; lying; vicious; malevolent; and cunning family members; you need to sit back and rethink your strategies in life: the money does not belong to you, albeit, you are related.
Finally, contribute to the kitty in the near future and perhaps you will reap the lottery rewards. To the winner, in your Will, give each one $1.00.
out here you can register lottery tickets via a palyers registration card. then if you lose the ticket, you still get to claim the winnings.
also if someone else, without the card tries to claim the winning ticket, they're all out of luck. he may have registered for one, and the ticket was stuck as his , well his estates seeing as he died the day after winning.
here is queenslands lotto golden casket website showing details on the card
http://www.goldencasket.com/WCOLInfo/cardapp.asp
I'm with you Mark.
And if there's anything I hate more than greedy bludgers, it's puerile, one-handed, slack-jawed, drooling meatslappers. Not to mention smarmy lagerlout gits, woofter sods and pillocks. They remind me of grotty, wanking oik, artless base-court apple-johns. Sometimes they're even worse than clouted, boggish foot-licking twits, dankish clack-dish plonkers, gormless crook-pated tossers, churlish boil-brained clotpole ponces and coc_ered bum-bailey poofters. I won't even mention craven dewberry pisshead coc_up pratting naffs, gob-kissing gleeping flap-mouthed coxcombs or dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gills.
I can't stand those bastages.
Hey ridge!
How ya doin?
Do you play much in Tn even with the draws being computer rng?
Hey buckeye!
I'm doin jest fine.
Nah, just the PB and MM as a rule. I play the state-run games in VA where they have 100% real drawings. Tennessee only has 29% real drawings (PB AND MM) and the rest are all state-run fake computer drawings. They've been caught cheating before with the computers and nobody went to jail so I don't trust em at all.
They don't give a dam that the players don't like fake computer draws and I don't give a dam if they go broke, which they won't as long as they have a steady stream of loyal JimBobs spending the rent money on scratchers.
The only person our lottery director cares about keeping happy is the governor cuz he signs her extremely generous check every week.
I hear ya. I wouldn't play them computer games either.
Good luck (as tiggs likes to say).
I wonder what the odds are of "dropping dead" the day after you win the lottery? And does anyone know if the back of the ticket was signed?
There was a news story on here not long ago about a lottery winner who dropped dead before he won the lottery.