Judge's ruling ends an Alberta couple's bid for a share of a 2007 Super 7 lottery jackpot
CALGARY — Relying on their friends to ensure they were covered for a lottery pool has cost an Alberta, Canada, couple $1.64 million, a judge has ruled.
In a written decision released Wednesday, Justice Suzanne Bensler said Michael and Catherine Clancy of Okotoks, Alta., weren't entitled to a percentage of a Nov. 23, 2007, $20 million jackpot.
"The plaintiffs' story is sad," Bensler said, in concluding the 21 people who did pay into the pool for the Super 7 draw were entitled to split the winnings.
"They have convinced me that they sincerely thought that their friends would ensure that they would be in the draw every time," the Court of Queen's Bench judge said.
"For their friends and acquaintances ... money became more important than friendship."
Bensler said even though the 21 participants who paid into the pool, run out of the Okotoks Elks Club, didn't earn the money, they were still entitled to the entire pot.
"One must be reminded that the defendants' wealth was acquired by luck, not by hard work," she said.
"This though does not give right to two or even one share of the lottery winnings."
While the Clancys regularly contributed when jackpots exceeded $10 million, they had stopped going to the club and weren't present when money was collected for the Nov. 23, 2007, draw.
Only one of the 21 winners, Albert Johnson, agreed they should be given a share of the cash.
Johnson had earlier settled with Clancys, agreeing to pay them $100,000 of his $952,000 cut of the winnings.
The couple's lawyer, Brian Clark, had argued a "core group" of players had entered into an agreement four years earlier to cover each other should one fail to pay.
But Bensler said what was discussed never amounted to a legal agreement on any of the participants.
"The plaintiffs have not convinced me that there was an acceptance from the members of the core group or that there was a legally binding agreement in place," she said.
The judge said even if there was a deal among the six members of the core group, including one man who no longer participated in the draws, it couldn't apply to all the players.
As a result of Bensler's ruling, pending an appeal each of the 21 winners will be given an additional $82,815.73, bringing their total prizes to $952,380.95.
Thanks to AJ for the tip.
They had stopped going to the club and still expected somebody to cover for them in the pool?
Nah, I don't think so.
They didn't deserve a nickel in my opinion. They're very lucky that one guy gave them 100 grand cuz they definitely didn't deserve it.
Just another example of why I don't like pools; I wonder how much the lawyers grabbed on this deal?
I AGREE...Bottom line, if you pay to play, then you get a share if the pool wins. If you miss a couple draws, then you are OUT for those draws.
I'm sorry but when I was running a pool I told everyone "I will not spot you for the draw, if you want to participate I need the $$ by this date/time"
If they wanted to participat that bad, they should have made a special trip to the person collenting the money to drop off cash. I had people do this on several occasions. I even allowed some of them to paypal me the $$ since they were out of town, but at least they paid.
I don't think these people deserve any of it.
It would be different if it was a long time pool player that participated EVERY week, and then that player had a terrible accident and ended up in the hospital and thats why they couldnt play. But, in this situation thats not the case.
Judge B$Rizzle says "Case closed, you dont get chit"
If Michael and Catherine Clancy had continued to reimburse their friends as they continue to play the lottery and won nothing then they might have had a case. How anyone could think their friends would ensure that they would be in the pool every time without any expectations of reimbursements is beyond me. Their story is not sad but stupid and stupid doesn't pay.
No pay , no win.
this never should have seen a courtroom. they are being unfair to the people who paid by contesting this. stay out of pools. this happens too often when the group takes one down. which isn't often but there always seems to be a problem when a group hits.
I've seen enough episodes of People's Court, Judge Judy and others to know better...Written agreement...PERIOD !
I agree with the judge and the members of this forum. Justice was served.
It makes me upset that the winning group had to incur attorney fees defending
what was clearly their money. This case should have been thrown out at hearing!
I doubt if their friends would have signed an agreement like the one they thought they had, that is split their future lottery winnings with them even though they contribute nothing to the cost of tickets.
agree w/ the judge's dicision, but don't like her attitude,she said the 21 participants did't earn the money,well maybe they did't use hammers, shovels & trucks,but they used their $ earned somehow and risked them on this game, the plantiff did not.i went fishing on party boat today where everyone on board has the option of joining the betting pool, $5 ea. the guy next to me declined,he caught the biggest doormat ,the angler w/ 2nd biggest flattie won the pool.
Right on Ridge. I hear about it on occasion "I was in that lottery pool too!" You don't pay,you don't play!.
Wow - More nutty plaintiffs!
A never ending stream of entertainment.
I had missed that line where they stopped going, and so before reading this I was feeling bad for them.
But, since it doesn't look like it was that they simply missed putting in their money for one draw (which I assumed), I don't really feel sorry for them not getting a share of the winnings. Seriously, if you leave a pool/club and then expect to be brought back in for that one draw that won, you need to get a slapping to bring you back to reality.
Did we read the same article? Here's what it said in the one I read:
"While the Clancys regularly contributed when jackpots exceeded $10 million, they had stopped going to the club and weren't present when money was collected for the Nov. 23, 2007, draw."
They were contributing to the cost of tickets, but didn't pay ahead of time for that particular drawing. If they weren't there when money was collected for previous drawings but contibuted their share for (losing) tickets after the fact I would see that as an implicit agreement with the others. Unfortunately the article says nothing about what happened for any other drawings, so I don't know whether they previously paid before the drawings even if they weren't at the club, or if the group accepted payment after the fact. As always, pools should have a written contract that unambiguously spells out the requirements.
Seeing how the paying pool members will only get $952K after not splitting with the Clancys who expected to get $1.65M, they must have been expecting to get two shares as if they both had paid into the pool. That seems both stupid and greedy if neither was contributing to the pool.
It was nice but certainly not necessary for the guy who gave them $100,000 to do that. I wonder if that decision was made after a few court
dates or when the guy got his check. I only say that because I'm just wondering about the level of entitlement the couple felt and how many of
the other players they approached with the same plan and at what point.
Obviously they filed the suit but really, deep down, I wonder if they ever felt that since they didn't play or pay that day they weren't honestly entitled
to a split of the pot? And after receiving $100,000 I guess the sense of entitlement or assumption to split grew out of control...if one did, maybe more
would.
I don't know why people think that if they are a contributing member one week $$$ that they still are a contributing member the next $0.00
The 'I'll cover for you' doesn't quite cut it after awhile and with most people doesn't ever cut it when it's time to collect a few hundred thousand
dollars or more.
Some people get some funny ideas about what they are entitled to after having participated in a lottery pool. I remember some years ago a group of Cleveland factory workers won the Ohio lottery and even though every one contributed the same amount some of the older members thought the younger members should give half their share to the older members to make up for what they lost playing before they joined. They younger members had to go to court to an equal share of the winnings. The Clancys not only thought their friends should have covered them but covered them for twice the amount that any of the paying pool members would get.
Seems like Canada has more than their share of trouble with lottery pools for some reason.
Seems like there's always some controversy and trouble getting your money if you win.
Strange.
That's what happens when peoples who can't prove they ever brought a ticket are allowed to file a claim for the winnings.
I agree with Ridgerunner regarding this particular case. I run a few lottery pools. My rule is, you don't pay,you don't play. But I would like to share an expeierence regarding one of my pools. One of my loyal players had a heart attack and was out of work briefly.
Myself and another player covered him. When he got back on his feet he paid us back.
That's the way it works with good people with compassion, integrity, principles and values, Nick.
But it seems when it comes to money, those traits go out the window many times in today's world.
This "if it feels good, do it" lifestyle that the libs have foisted upon us over the last 50 years is eating at the fabric and backbone of this country like a cancer.
A man's word used to be his bond. Not any more.
Now it doesn't mean anything to anybody who grew up under the agenda of today's educators and today's news media and now, even the Executive Branch.
This country has undergone the greatest brainwashing in the history of the world to turn us into something only the nutty few wanted years ago. They've done it by drumming the views of the nutty few into the minds of our children through liberal education and slanted, biased news reporting. If that's all they're ever exposed to, that's what they'll believe.
If we don't stop them in 2012, I don't think we ever will.
I still believe that there are a lot of good people in this country though.
In your case the group had a fixed membership and the player planned to return as soon as his health permitted.
However as was pointed out in this story and others when the Clancys joined the pool four years earlier they made an agreement with a core(fixed) group of six players one who had since moved on as had the Clancys with no plans of returning. The group that won the jackpot consisted of 21 players of which sixteen had never agreed to pay for the Clancys who weren't even in the group then. This group was determined by who contributed money to buy tickets as are many pools that pop up when the lottery jackpots get large.
This is why I dislike lottery pools. I'm in a pool with my wife and that's it.
Matthew Hayduk, an Edmonton man had go to court before getting his $33 million lottery jackpot and he wasn't in a pool. It seems in Canada anyone can file a claim for the lottery jackpot even if they had no part in buying the winning ticket.
https://www.lotterypost.com/news/233181
"a mans word is his bond" heard it a million times growing up. now if you say it for whatever reason the other party says OK let's get the legal paperwork squared away. like you did't even say it.
Quite a number of false claims were filed recently here in Canada which makes it even more important to stay out of pools.
I smell little mario the moron with a new twist.
Hmmm...
Hmmm...
Methinks he doth protest too much (about lottery pools).