Includes video report
A woman awarded half of a $1.2 million lottery prize in Nova Scotia says her nephew is "dead" to her after he took half of the prize money, and that she only wrote his name on the ticket for "good luck." Meanwhile, at least one lawyer says she may have a case.
Barb Reddick and her nephew, Tyrone MacInnis, each received checks for $611,319.50 on Thursday after a $1,222,639 ticket with both their names on it was pulled Wednesday night at a Chase the Ace draw in Margaree, N.S.
Reddick surprised the organizers by telling the media soon afterward that she would be "taking (MacInnis) to court."
On Friday, Reddick explained that, although MacInnis purchased the ticket, she sent him $100 for tickets, and "told him to put his name on it for good luck." She says she only planned to give him $150,000 if he won.
"He bought other tickets and didn't put my name on it," she said.
"I'm not greedy," she went on. "If he would have won, I wouldn't have (gotten) nothing out of him," Reddick added.
Reddick said she will never speak with her nephew again "in this life or the next," adding, "He's dead to me. I don't want nothing to do with him."
Reddick maintained Friday that she would be "taking him to court" and said that she had called a lawyer but had not yet heard back. She said pursing legal action is "for the principle."
"It don't matter if the judge give me the money back or not," she said.
A member of MacInnis' family said that they would not comment, saying only that they plan to get a lawyer.
Bernice Curley, chair of the Margaree Forks Chase the Ace committee, said she was floored.
She said because there were two names on the winning ticket, she wrote a check for half of the winnings to each person, after checking with province's alcohol and gaming division "to make sure I was allowed to do that. They were perfectly fine with that, that it would make it easier for everyone involved. So I split the check evenly."
"I can't really explain it. I didn't expect anything like that to happen," she said. "I just came to deliver the checks and present them to the winners.
"I'm a little bit disappointed that happened at the end."
Earlier Thursday morning, Curley said that there was a good crowd on hand for the big win.
"The buzz was quite high," she said.
"Everyone was pretty excited to see what was going to happen. Since the jackpot got higher, every week the crowd got bigger."
"I think people in the area got a little frustrated. They're not used to having traffic gridlocked in Margaree Forks, but it was short-lived and it was great to see so many people come to the area."
The proceeds are being shared by the Margaree Volunteer Fire Department and North East Margaree Volunteer Fire Department, which are getting new fire trucks and possibly emergency response vehicles.
"For a place that says there's no money, there was money coming into Margaree over the last few weeks. I'm not sure where, but everyone just wants a shot at it [the jackpot]," Curley said.
She said she's been asked if she feels guilty about the money people are spending on tickets.
"I'm not sure. I'm really not sure where that money comes from," Curley said.
"I'm more of a believer that if you weren't giving it to us, you'd be giving it to some other gambling idea."
Does Reddick have a case?
Rob Currie, who teaches at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, said the first thing that needs to be done is find out what rules and regulations are in place for this type of situation.
This would require looking at the rules from the Alcohol, Gaming, Fuel and Tobacco Division of Service Nova Scotia, which handle games of chance such as Chase the Ace.
He said there would also have to be evidence about what the terms of the agreement were; noting that an oral contract is "much dicier" than a written one.
He added that, because this dispute is about more than $25,000, it is too large to be brought to small claims court and it could only be brought to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.
"It could cost tens of thousands of dollars to both sides and it could drag on for years," said Currie.
He said there are many disputes known to Canadian law about lottery tickets, and his impression is that none of them end very well.
Halifax-based lawer David Hutt, who was not representing Reddick when he spoke to local media on Friday, said that she "may" have a case, although he's waiting for more details.
"It's a question of contract," Hutt said. "It's not really between her and the organizers of the event. It's actually between her and her nephew, and right now we're really scant on analysis."
Hutt said that MacInnis' name being on the ticket would be evidence the court would consider, but how that's interpreted "depends on what the two discussed." He said it's also likely the court would consider whether there was an "oral, informal" contract between the two.
"If it was just a gratuitous promise on her part, it's quite possible that she does have a case and (if) there is no contract, she should get the whole amount," Hutt said.
Hutt emphasized that "we're really scant on details" and pointed out that he has yet to hear MacInnis' version of events. MacInnis has not yet commented publicly.
"It's terribly sad and it suggests to me that more of us should formalize these agreements," Hutt said.
Hutt suggested that Canadians who play the lottery together — including in office pools — should write down their contracts. The Atlantic Lottery Corporation provides a form that players can use to document their pool play.
About Chase the Ace
Chase the Ace is a form of lottery that has gained popularity since 2013 in parts of Canada as a way to raise funds for charities. It is also known as Crown the King and Jig the Joker.
The jackpot accumulates from week-to-week until it is won, and the game is then over. Each week participants buy lottery tickets. The funds from ticket sales are divided into three parts. Typically the organizers keep 50%, the winner of the lottery takes 20% and 30% goes into the jackpot. The lottery winner also then draws a card from a deck of playing cards and wins the accumulated jackpot if the ace of spades is drawn. If not, the reduced deck is kept for the following week's game.
VIDEO: Watch the aftermath of the jackpot award ceremony
(Click to display full-size in gallery)
(Click to display full-size in gallery)
Thanks to dannyct for the tip.
That sucks big time. They're paying more for the lawyer than the ticket is actually worth. This is a trust issue too. If it goes to court, it will drag. Good luck to that woman, however, they should have had a plan before all this happened. Since names are on the ticket, he might have to pay her depending on the winnings.
Didn't even have to scroll to the bottom...................... Just pathetic
Some lawyer is going to win a jackpot!
Sad. Money is nothing compared to family that have your back
Lawyer fees are not cheap
The curse of the lottery, eh?
I think this is more like the curse of stupidity.
If it is your ticket then your name should be the only name on it.....you do not invite someone else to add their name on a ticket that could possibly win!!!!.....You then gift the amount you plan to gift AFTER you win...
I am curious as to why she had him purchase the tickets....Why didn’t she buy them herself...
And her saying that she put his name on the ticket for “good luck” .....(you can fill in the blank on that one!)
I agree with everyone on this news topic. They might as well hand the prize to the lawyer. Case closed.
never involve lawyers with anything. they should settle this themselves. 33.3% for him 66.7% for her seems fair since she made an error in judgement.
"she only wrote his name on the ticket for "Good Luck""
It must have worked!
What is the Cost of Good Luck?
Half of 1.2 Million!
Worse comes to worse. What if he disappears with the money, takes care of himself, gets a search warrant from the aunt who goes to court(SMH), some of you are correct. The lawyer. Then the lawyer gets in place and starts charging $150- $500 per fee. Lawyers aren't cheap either. THen the tax payers get involved. Wtf next?
I think both people weren't thinking and that is if he flees away some place else she isn't getting anything.
This story gave me a migraine. Do people watch cartoons all day and only look at the pictures in books? The level of stupidity cannot be explained.
She said because there were two names on the winning ticket, she wrote a check for half of the winnings to each person, after checking with province's alcohol and gaming division "to make sure I was allowed to do that. They were perfectly fine with that, that it would make it easier for everyone involved. So I split the check evenly."
Why did Reddick wait until after they got their checks to say she should get all the money?
Hutt said that MacInnis' name being on the ticket would be evidence the court would consider, but how that's interpreted "depends on what the two discussed." He said it's also likely the court would consider whether there was an "oral, informal" contract between the two.
There are at least three sides to this story and we heard only two. The court will make their ruling after hearing from all sides. Bernice Curley, chair of the Margaree Forks Chase the Ace committee check with NS alcohol and gaming division before issuing the checks so it looks like she and the gaming division believe MacInnis should get half. And saying she added MacInnis' name to the ticket isn't going to help her case any.
Hopefully she'll get a good lawyer that will tell her the chances of winning might not be worth the cost of a lawsuit.
Hi Stack47!
The thing that is irritating is that it may cost more money for a lawsuit, money that she could use to better her life.
This woman seems like she would rather put her nephew and herself through hell just to prove a point and out of anger that things did not go the way she assumed they would.
I think she said she is not greedy? She can prove it by taking her portion, learn from this experience and move on.
Being vindictive never helps.
If you're talking about unrelated comments like "Christians should not be suing other Christians", I agree, but the actual story is unique and interesting.
It's unique because no one with common sense has or will ever make such a mistake. Even occasional players who don't know the difference between annuity value and cash value understand enough of the basics to avoid this pitfall. People sign tickets as proof of ownership. It was her ink and hand that signed her nephew into 50% of the winnings. If she wanted to assign him less then she never should have signed his name on it or add the percentages in parenthesis next to each name. Many people won who signed the tickets with their names only and after the win decide at the lottery headquarters that they will share equally with spouses, siblings and/or friends. She gave up that control when she added his name to the ticket. Did she assume that because her name was listed first, she called the shots? If you gamble to win, learn the rules. Stay connected with the happenings.
Family and money.....a bad combination.
She loved her nephew like a son, but not a half a million dollars worth!
Tyrone doesn't seem to be in the least bothered with how his aunt feels.He got his OWN check, his ship came in. I mean just look at that smile on his face, it says " life is good."
Hey nephew don't spend it all in one place or maybe none at all... You never know when your day in court comes if your going to have to fork over that money or not.
It wasn't the same as signing the usual "by signing your name, you agree to the lottery's terms" type of ticket so the circumstances are much different. I don't think it's about not knowing the rules, but more of like a change of heart after she found out the amount on his check was the same as hers.
She is of course wrong saying she ain’t greedy.
That is exactly what she is, greedy.
If she can’t go to the store her self and buy tickets dont buy tickets at all and if she feels so bad about her nephew let someone else buy the tickets.
Saying afterwards she would have given him $150.000, no she wouldn’t have given him $1 if his name wasn’t on the ticket, beacuse she is greedy.
So if you ask a buddy to pick you up a few tickets for the next lottery draw in your country and tell him you will give him some of the prize if you win. He deserves half ? Even if that wasn't the agreement ?
*Granted, the putting of his name on the ticket for luck was suspect and her explanation in the video of what game he was supposed to get half of could be questioned. Wasn't there something about himnot putting her name on the other tickets he was supposed to purchase for her? Course, we haven't heard from him, yet.*
I could see her point on giving him only $150K, at his age and maturity level.
I have picked up tickets for neighbors because I was going to the store in the past. But expecting half ?
Glad I am not asking you for any favors.
She surely did bring this on herself. I would never put anyone else name on a ticket I bought "for luck". That was her stupidity 1,000%
AAAAAMEN
Oh that is not a problem in sweden. Most of the plays are made online in Sweden. If you play in store you need to use a players card registered in your name, your name is preprinted on the ticket also. If the ticket is lost, burnt or eaten by your dog, you will recieve your winnings in your bank account anyway. If you want to play with friends you do this online, everybody puts in the same amount of money and will recieve equal in case of a win.
That is interesting . So you can never claim anonymously?
Winners are anonymous in sweden if they choose to. When you win big and have played in store you dont need to go to the store first to claim. Of course some people do this because they want to check tickets in store, in that case the store owner at least know who the winner is. But they are not allowed to reveal who the winner is. Jackpot winners will recieve a phone call from an employe at Svenska Spel when they win and if they have cell phone numbers registered online.
Anonymity aspect is great...but that registering to purchase card ??? ehhhhhh, I don't want any government agency knowing how much I spend a year or keeping track of my lottery purchases....but on a positive side, that sure does ensure ownership, especially if they contact you on a win... Is that contacting done on any winning amount or just on a larger monetary win ?
Come on auntie, u choosing money over family?? But you use him for good luck, thats worth half of the prize i would say! GREED at its finest!
In the late 70's I had a similar - small change - event happen.
Dunkin Donuts had a scratch off game you needed 2 tickets to win any amount.
I had a 1000.00 half, the asst manager at work Wayne the other. Wayne you go get the cash for us, I trust you.
Days later He told me ticket was not a match, but his brother was in the paper for winning DD 1000.00 Prize.
Wayne had all new living room furniture when I stopped by. I'd set him up with his future wife as well.
I didn't get violent or angry as others suggested, I waited and watched for the bigger answer.
Wayne died of leukemia unknown to all months later. That pittance and a wife made his short life happy.
Any amount of Money makes even "nice" people crazy.
So don't forget to look for the big picture in everything.
It's a good thing it was only for $1,000.
What about if it was McDonald's Monopoly game?
ie: You had Boardwalk and he had Park Place and the prize was $1,000,000?
I might be predjudice now but I have never understood those that want to keep hidden from the government their money. Do you keep all your cash in the wallet? Do you even have a bank account/credit card? And if you win how on earth would you get $300 million and not put them in a bank account?
Numbers are roughly translated from swedish krona:
All winnings below $125.000 are transfered directy to your player account.
Winnings from $125.000 to $600.000 are transfered to your bank account after you have been contacted by a representative at Svenska Spel.
If you win more than 5.000.000 Kr or about $600.000 you will be invited to a meeting with Svenska spel and the bank that pay out the win.
And I forgot to mention that all winning in Sweden is taxfree.
Financial institution. I have credit union. I will never have assets in a bank.
Oh yes on the bank account... a local credit union and most folks have a CC in this country. Always have cash on hand and keep some hidden. BUT with $300 Million,it would be a wire transfer into your own established account.................Gotta like that tax free stuff
Yea, that is just not credible on her part. A court will just keep the split 50/50 solely do to his name being on the ticket. So we are addressing our signature law area again due to different facts which is good. Do not let anyone else sign your ticket unless you plan on giving them 50%. And 3 names will mean a third each.
It never pays off to do people wrong.
I am so glad you actually commented on this. You say you're a lawyer, correct. Because I am going to talk to a couple of lawyers myself.
If this does get taken to court, they might as well say goodbye to that money. Is it he said vs she said? Is it her word against his now? Hey, he could actually take that money and hide it some place. So, she can't do anything then.
$300k is the amt with taxes taken out. It's still good, however, it's not worth the courts. I would seriously hide as much money and no joke find a relative I could trust.
She loses anyway you look at it.Common sense should prevail, despite what she or this lawyer * thinks.She said " she signed his name"- she was not forced too. She ought to have read the rules before putting pen to paper.The other thing is, she stood for the photo shoot w/ her nephew. Whether she was ticked with him at the time or not, her standing there shows she "accepted" the results.
* Years ago in this neck of the woods, this gal hands a winning lottery ticket to a "complete stranger" by mistake*`she says in a convenient & walks out. She finds out later about her error, and even had the store pull footage of the handoff. They tracked this guy down when he went to claim, but given that the footage showed no coercion, she lost- live with it lady.
Given that this woman has already shown her dark side for her blood, Tyrone better not come up missing or worse, cause her words will come back to haunt her.
noise-gate, I believe that you are talking about Emily Leach. May she rest in peace. Emily had surgery on her pancreas and was in debt by $300,000.00 afterward. Her $1,000,000.00 win before taxes paid off that debt.
No one knows why she handed out $100.00 bills to complete strangers. Then she gave two men some lottery tickets. One man won $650,000.00 before taxes. Emily filed a request with the Lottery to share the prize. Her share would have been less than $200,000.00 A lawyer would not have taken this case, I believe.
Emily worked at the Veterans Administration in Menlo Park, CA at the time. Her last few years were not good for her health.
Do not confuse Emily Leach with Julie Leach of Flint, Michigan. Julie and her family are most likely doing very well. Julie has stayed out of the police blotters and media. Julie gave a very good media availability with Scott Bowen the Host from the Michigan lottery.
I was sympathetic to the woman jp winner who did not know she could claim via a trust and signed her name to the ticket and expected her to win in court. But I have zero sympathy in this case. A ticket is personal property so why place/add another name on it? I don't see that as some sort of nuanced legal issue as in the trust case. However, the fact that she was standing with him and appeared to accept the results is not relevant. She did not wait months to change her mind and she clearly looks angry in the photo and is not standing close to her relative. She does have a right to sue but winning is another matter.
Since that case decision, I noticed the DC lottery changed their website and is telling everyone to sign their tickets. This is odd since DC does not address whether one can claim via a trust and a jp winner used a trust in 2009.
Why didn't she buy her own tickets? She lives in Nova Scotia.
Be glad she got half--half a loaf is better than no loaf.
I read Artist and do agree on some of this issue. Here is the problem then. No one knows about what was discussed at the lottery headquarters when they came to claim the money. That woman had a look on her face where she was thinking Darnit, she is so screwed now. Just take it like a woman and know unless she has documentation on paper she isn't getting a dime out of it.
That woman won't see anything since now it is all public with the media, web, etc. She might as well just forget it and I hate to say this. If he dies of a heart attack, wonder what the law says and if he puts any names in the trust fund. That is the only way she gets a chunk but it's not worth it.
It's because people are desperate and I think she tried a counter attack and thinking okay the nephew has winnings. Try to do an alternative and it backfired. I think he played dumb and agreed and now she is finding out it's not so.
I agree with you. However, I have heard from other lawyers as well if she gets a document and it's signed then she gets and just because the ticket with her name doesn't mean. She is now wasting the tax payers money. She has no case so perhaps a lawyer will tell her that. She just screwed herself and be a woman case closed.
In my opinion if his name is on the ticket and she wrote it he is entitled to half the prize she admittedly said she wrote his name down for good luck well it worked now pay him for his good luck for God’s sake that’s your nephew ,and if he purchased the ticket especially with his own money it can become his and don’t talk about lawyers fees to me the whole situation is just dumb dumb dumb!!!!...reminds me of the episode of all in the family when Edith purchased a winning lottery ticket with her money but the number was Weezies(Louise) you just have to think and be a smart lottery player and verbal agreements do stand while they still must prove a verbal agreement but we will see
More Comon sense.
This evil Aunt better get her head on right.There was enough "love" to allow her to entrust her nephew to pick up the tickets.Even before the win,she should have made her position clear to the nephew, on what happens after the win, not telling the press her thoughts.
It is possible that Barb had a discussion with Bernice prior to the photo shoot , telling Bernice that this jackpot sharing was " wrong" that her nephew is only entitled to what what. Bernice could have replied that she spoke to her superiors prior to splitting the check & that Barb was up a creek at this point. Once again.. Sorry Barb, stupidity got the best of you here.
Btw, the word "Evil" is defined as dishonorable & malicious..so there!
Music* you are correct, l was thinking about Miss Leach.
This is reality, not a tv show. Let's not get anything mixed up with. Verbal agreements mean nothing. A written agreement and possibly opinions from a lawyer,yes. Nobody knows exactly who is really if someone is entitled to it. SHe could have just thrown her name, however, be careful what you wish for because you might not get it. Welcome to the board.
That was the past. This is the present and future. Let us win Mega Millions soon!!
nephew outsmarted the aunt and could care less about any future relationship. i mean, who spends any time with their aunt or wants to. answer is no one. he deserves the 50% for his guile and cunning way of thinking about this outside the box.
What are you talking about??? Verbal promises and agreements can mean a great deal and you do not need to be an attorney to know that basic premise. A judge or jury will hear the testimony and look for contradictions, veracity, etc. and make a decision. By the way, all court cases are he said or she said, etc. and courts try to ascertain the true facts. In this case, the verbal testimony will be very important.
I agree with you 110%. The verbal agreement or discussion is key and we will learn if a possible verbal discussion or lack thereof, can supercede a signature on a ticket.
Personally, I remember being a rookie lottery player and making email statements. Such as, "How easy winning will be and I will share with all my family members". I might have written amounts also.
Now I realize how difficult it is to win big. I hope those emails do not come back to bite me in the butt. I will share but it will be on my terms and not theirs.
My present policy is, "No promises and No pledges to anyone".
Give thanks for the U.S. Armed Forces and our Police and Sheriffs. This is how the rich really benefit from peace and security. All of our taxes pay for these things. Our First Responders!
l continue to believe with all my heart, that l will donate anything over $80 mil to charities of my choosing. It's Dinner Out ,moving forward.
In most states if the dollar amount was $1000 or less you may be correct. But my understanding is, over $1000 and contract law would be followed. Since we don't have more details in the story to know if 'signing' the ticket means you are bound by the rules/contract we really don't know what would prevail in this case.
It could be just as you say and the 'rules' could let them verbally determine who gets what.
I am not sure what you mean by contract law. You have a legal expect quoted in the article who did not rule out verbal agreements. This is not a small claims case so the money involved has little to do with the type of law applied. We are waiting to see what supercedes only...the signature or the verbal dialogue. There clearly was not a "meeting of the minds" on any contract.
Anything written does mean anything. Word by mouth means nothing. You know that and everyone else knows that.
The main thing is this woman either is doing something and not telling anything or she needs to learn lesson.
She aint getting squat. A waste of time if it goes to court.
Just give the money to the lawyer. End of story. This whole mess stinks.
"I'm going to put my nephew's name and mine on this lottery ticket"
"Hey, I don't want to split the winnings!"
-- moron
" Word by mouth means nothing. You know that and everyone else knows that. "
The world is full of people who "know" all sorts of things that they're wrong about. Most verbal contracts have just as much force as written contracts. With the exception of a few things where contracts must be in writing to be enforced the only problem with verbal contracts is that it's usually difficult or impossible to prove what the contract was.
It's a pretty safe bet that the people whose names appear on a lottery ticket will be found to have an ownership interest unless there's very strong evidence to the contrary. That doesn't mean that everyone whose name is on a ticket has an equal ownership interest, although that's a logical starting point for establishing who gets what.
"I'm going to put my nephew's name and mine on this lottery ticket"
Do you mean this type of verbal contract, KY?
HAPPY NATIONAL LOTTERY DAY....17 JULY
Two things we all know about these two. One is desperate and the other one is like holy crap do we really have to do this.
Nobody knows enough about these people, however, just go 50/50. OR: Did something happen before that they're not saying anything at all?
Happy National Lottery Day!! July, 17,
The Lottery has become a favorite endeavor to spend our money. Like, $70,000,000.00
This could become a Lottery Post Member's favorite day when he/she wins Mega Millions tonight.
Good Luck everyone!!
I've never heard of National lottery day before...definitely something I need to look up next year.
Over two weeks ago a Canadian woman threatened to sue her nephew because she put his name on what turned out to be the winning ticket. Both got their over sized checks and apparently were paid off.
Do she actually sue him?
Updated: July 27, 2018
On Thursday, Reddick’s lawyer, Adam Rodgers, filed a statement of claim in Nova Scotia Supreme Court, saying her nephew was not entitled to half the Chase the Ace winnings even though his name was written on the ticket. Rodgers also filed a motion to have a preservation order imposed on the share of the winnings her nephew has claimed. She’s worried any money spent by her nephew, or his parents, won’t be “recoverable,” and she wants the winning funds frozen.
The motion is to be heard Aug. 10 in the courthouse in Port Hawkesbury, N.S.
A hearing on the motion for a preservation order will be heard in Port Hawkesbury on Aug. 10.
Dates have not yet been set for the hearing on the lawsuit itself, although Rodgers said he hopes the matter can be resolved by this fall.
Sources:
Edmonton Journal
CTV News