Co-workers suing for share of 207 million lotto jackpot
- Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 10:49
- 4,732 views
- 11 comments
Apparently some co-workers of the city workers in Ohio who won the 207 million dollars in the lottery the other day are suing for a share of the winnings. It seems 4 members of the lotto pool who happened to have missed work the day the winning ticket was purchased have been denied a share of the winnings on the grounds that since they weren’t at work that day and didn’t put any money into the ticket purchases that day they are not entitled to share the jackpot prize money.
The four co-workers think they should share in the winning because they were members of the pool. They say money from previous winnings went into purchasing the tickets and that means they did in fact contribute to the purchase. Besides, just on principle alone they should be given an equal share of the pie and not shafted because they happened to miss work the day the pool got lucky and won.
Opinions run the gamut as to whether or not these 4 co-workers should share in the winnings. Legal experts are divided as to whether or not the 4 co-workers have a case. There was no written agreement and it will be hard to make a case based on an oral agreement; however most people are in agreement that the Ohio city workers who are denying a share of the winnings to the co-workers who missed work are being greedy. What do you think?
Marc said:
They are entitled to a share based on the portion of the roll-over money. Not an equal share of the overall jackpot.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Kristin said:
They are absolutely not entitled to any money. No ticket, no winnings. If I usually buy a lottery ticket for the same set of numbers but one week I miss because I’m sick, and the lottery goes out with “my” numbers, I don’t win. I don’t see how this is different.
January 6th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Chris said:
“The four co-workers think they should share in the winning because they were members of the pool. They say money from previous winnings went into purchasing the tickets and that means they did in fact contribute to the purchase.”
If money from previous winnings went into purchasing a new pool of tickets, and there is no way to distinguish the purchase of “new” tickets from previous winnings tickets, the four workers will share in the “pool”. Basically, a group of people made an oral agreement to pool money together to win the prize. If “previously won” money was used to buy tickets that ultimately lost, and that can be clearly established, then the four people who missed work that day have no legal standing with regard to the new money that was used for the winning ticket purchase. Unless there is some proof that can be established that they were expected to contribute (i.e. 15 tickets were purchased and 11 people are claiming that they put in the money after they saw the tickets were winners). If “previously won” money was used to purchase 15 tickets (with no way to distinguish which money is tied to which purchase of tickets), then the four outsiders are obviously entitled to some portion of the overall winnings, and the courts can decide that based on the specifics of the current case law. The story provides too little detail for us to decide here. We need to look at the actual suit filed.
January 6th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Tunny said:
Four city workers absent out of a group of 19. That’s a 21% absentee rate. Seems like poetic justice for the average tax paying citizen. The absent workers shouldn’t get anything if they didn’t contribute to the pot. Maybe next time, they will think twice before calling in sick.
January 6th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Margot said:
Jeez….how much money do people need??????
January 7th, 2009 at 2:11 am
FoolsGold said:
Absent an agreement to cover such situations the “pool” was a weekly event and each one is a separate agreement. I’m sure there were absentees on other days: bet no one ever came in and said here is the dollar I should have put in for last week’s losing draw.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
wayne said:
Just another example of GREED gone Wild! Of course the 4 missing coworkers should get their fair share just on principle alone. I’m so glad I stopped playing many years ago! Just follow 99% of all easy money winners & u will clearly see that there is a curse that goes along with winnig this kind of money. No thanks!!!
January 11th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Marty said:
It will be determined upon past practice with the “pool”. Without a formal written agreement regarding policies to be followed in these “absentee” circumsatnces, the group will have set precedent over the past 5 years of their existence. Most likely they will have to adhere to past practices when someone is absent and how the smaller winnings were handled. Without more info about past practices, I can’t be definitive on how it will come out.
January 11th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
randy said:
WWJD- What Would Jesus DO?
January 17th, 2009 at 7:47 am
fred samford said:
They should get a portion of the loot.
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Michael said:
State lotteries have been around since what, maybe early seventies? There should be case law by now to guide a judge’s decision. I personally would divide it between all in the pool. Its 10 million vs 13 million roughly. If you’ve been blue collar all your life and suddenly ten million isn’t enough, you need your mother to read the golden rule to you one more time.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:56 pm