Posted on 03/02/2013 8:42:24 AM PST by JoeProBono
INDIANAPOLIS, - An Indiana judge blocked a lottery payout of $9.5 million, at the center of a dispute among eight hair salon workers who say they have claim to the prize.
The request came from seven co-workers at Lou's Creative Styles in Lawrence, Ind., who contend they should share in prize winnings from a ticket bought by another co-worker, Christiana Shaw, The Indianapolis Star reported Friday.
Marion County, Ind., Superior Judge Heather Welch issued a temporary order prohibiting the payout by the Indiana Lottery Commission last week, and Friday extended it indefinitely.
Shaw told her colleagues the winning ticket she purchased was hers alone, paid for with her own money and not money pooled by the group for ticket-buying. Shaw's attorney, Kent Smith, repeated the claim at a hearing Wednesday, acknowledging his client bought the winning ticket at the same time she bought tickets for the group.
At the hearing, the seven co-workers, and three former employees who participated in the salon's lottery pool, testified each was aware of a "rule" in their system prohibiting the purchaser of the group's tickets to buy personal tickets at the same time.
We read that short disturbing story in high school. I’ve never forgotten it.
Here it is... for those who have not read it.
http://www.americanliterature.com/author/shirley-jackson/short-story/the-lottery
A few years back, I operated a Lottery pool among my fellow employees. I ALWAYS delivered to them a copy of the pooled tickets before the drawing.
“There are good lotteries and there are bad lotteries but mostly there are bad lotteries”
- anon
When will people learn to sign their names on these group tickets? Less messy and no lawyers getting their cut.
The only thing more stupid than playing the lottery is playing the lottery with people buying tickets as a group....
Pay them all. The holder of the winning ticket is stupid and will just be broke again anyway.
I participated in dozens of "pooled" lotteries in my day; Always the purchaser would distribute copies of all the tickets to each individual member before the drawing.
That's not rocket science.Only a truly stupid individual, or one with larceny in their heart would fail to see the propriety and ethical necessity for that.
This part of the story makes no sense, since at the time of the purchase, every ticket is as likely to win as any other.
If the group paid for 50 tickets, and they get copies of them before the drawing, they don't have a legitimate beef.
There has been no mention on any online source I can find of the group purchase being distributed prior to the draw.
Without any details, it's really hard to say what happened; anyone can make the claim later that there were rules, and drag former friends and coworkers in to say what the rules were then, but really, I don't see how it much matters.
In any event, the winners here are lawyers and the state - not only did they gain the money through the playing of the lottery, they'll gain through taxing of winnings. I'm sure the lottery's position is: we pay who presents the ticket - most advantageous for the seizure of winnings to put into the black hole of state budget.
As for the winner and the group she played with: I don't see how she walks away with the winnings on this without having distributed copies of the tickets ahead of time. I think the eventual ruling will be: She's the sole winner as far as the lottery and taxes are concerned, and then the remaining money will be split between the members of the group, with lawyers scooping up at least 1/3rd of all winnings. A 9 million dollar win becomes a $120,000 payout for each of the members of the group. Life changing money, but far from anyone’s fantasy at this point.
I’ve never forgotten that short story. I had to reread it to make sure I got it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.