Politics | 01/06/2009 10:55 am

Co-Workers Sue Over $207M Lottery Win (Video)

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Bad day to take a sick day.

Four city workers — who had been polling their money in the office pot for nearly five years under the verbal agreement that they’d all share the winnings — were out of the office and unavailable to contribute to the office pool for a drawing last month that resulted in a $207 million payoff.

The four planitiffs are suing 15 co-workers who are keeping the $207 million Mega Millions lottery winnings all to themselves. The plantiffs claim they joined with the other participants in a pool for the December 9 Mega Millions. They won some cash in that drawing, and some of the winnings were allegedly used to purchase tickets for the December 12 drawing, which resulted in the jackpot. Watch below as two lawyers debate the case on CNN and then tell us: Are the employees not getting their "fair share"?

Read more about: Culture, Gossip, Humanity, Humor, Lifestyle, Lottery, Luck, News, Office, Politics, Society, U.S., Video, Work

21 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Seems to me she has a case since they had done it for years. Greed sure shows you who your friends are!

By S.J. Morgan on 01/06/2009 11:08 am

e-mail alert

Hey. If you don’t pay, you don’t play. And that’s a fact. But good luck trying to live among the “losers” afterward. The “winners” will never live this down, casting a pall on all …

By rocky rocky on 01/06/2009 11:45 am

e-mail alert

It is precisely BECAUSE of the fact these 4 plaintiffs have participated in the pool to buy lottery tickets over the years that they don’t deserve any part of it. They knew when the drawings take place and should have made arrangements (off of work or not) to have their portion of the money turned in beforehand. The true winners had no moral or legal reason to share their winnings with them. That being said however, if I were part of the pool, I would attempt to convince the rest of the group to split the money. Simply because even if they each after taxes received 3 million, that’s 3 million more than they have right now. And a million dollars can go a long way and if the tables were turned, they would want their fellow co-workers to do the same for them. I know I would.

By Belinda Joy on 01/06/2009 12:18 pm

e-mail alert

If any of their prior winnings were used to buy tickets, then they may have a claim. Not to share with 4 other co-workers who have been part of this because they happen to be out the day of the collection? Let’s say there had been an unexpected death in the family, or a family member had to be taken to the hospital, do people really stop and think “Wait, I have to make Lotto arrangements!” Even people out sick may not have it in their heads. Shame on them!!! They will soon learn what Karma means.

By Brooklyn Gal on 01/06/2009 12:42 pm

e-mail alert

Oh divvy it up, greed mongrels. If previous winnings bought tickets you’re in.

By Buh- Bye on 01/06/2009 1:40 pm

e-mail alert

The case clearly states, that all in the office pool, pitched in over the years and “NOT” everyone always piched consistantly, it was random and continued throughout the years as such. Meaning that even those that won, were at times, random contributors but just happened to plunk down donations prior to the winning numbers being called. It was an agreement, albeit verbal, “ALL” in the office participated based on that agreement. Therefore, as all at one time were random contributors and all under the verbal agreement, they are at best, morally obligated to spread the wealth. I fully believe, that under the law, those 4 co-workers can win their case based on circumstantial evidence alone.

By HA BIBI on 01/06/2009 3:04 pm

e-mail alert

That would be always Pitched in consistantly.

By HA BIBI on 01/06/2009 3:06 pm

e-mail alert

Elaine, what’s your opinion on this hypothetical case — if one of the group had pitched in for four years, eleven months. Then left the company for the last month? Would same apply? Sounds to me like their case hinges on the winnings from the previous week being used to purchase the tickets, since apparently not everyone paid up every single week. Your thoughts?

By Buh- Bye on 01/06/2009 4:06 pm

e-mail alert

Good question MA, As I stated earlier, they all sporadically pitched in over an extended amount of time.Those who happened to contribute that week, you might say got lucky. However, as they all at one time or another acted as these 4 and did not always contribute each week, they too, could have in turn had the same unlucky consequences. As for the hypothetical person who left the company, I guess that individual, if wishing to continue in the lottery pool, would had to have mentioned his desire to do so and express his concern over the possibility of future winnings and his vested interest in such, along with a continual agreement to contribute to the on going game if you will. And, all others would have to agree to such.(Fine example of when to “get it in writing”) With the real case that will soon be heading to the courts, all involved had an verbal contract with one another in regards to any possible future winnings from playing the lottery. And the reason I state that they can quite possibly win on circumstantial evidence is one they were all in agreement verbally as to the distributing should they win with no contract in ink that would state otherwise. Moving forward those in opposition to sharing the winnings with the other 4 would in turn have to prove that they and they alone were the only contributors to the pot and since no one single person contributed on an consistant basis, it boils down to them having to prove that they are somehow entitled to retain the money without sharing the winnings. Basically, a he said, she said case. And one more reason, that if people are to enter into an agreement that involves money, one should always get it in writting as this is a gauranteed,sustainable and binding contract, that takes all the guess work out of the situation, should it end up in the courts.

By HA BIBI on 01/06/2009 5:59 pm

e-mail alert

should be an interesting case. I still think it hinges primarily on the fact that the ticket buyers used the winnings from the previous week to buy the next set of tickets… hence, the four have indeed contributed to the winning ticket’s purchase because they didn’t take their winnings from the previous week but let it ride. it may mean they get a smaller share however, because they didn’t add to the pot and up the ante. If I was judging the case that is how I’d rule anyway. if courts rule based on the implied agreement it would open a hornet’s nest of future potential suits all founded on “he said, she said” unprovable arguments. everyone and their mother would be claiming a verbal agreement. it will be fascinating to watch this one unfold. i agree - don’t make a verbal agreement, get it in writing. i foresee office lottery spread sheets with boiler plates popping up across America in the next couple of weeks. ha

By Buh- Bye on 01/06/2009 8:38 pm

e-mail alert

LOL MA, that’s true. The stakes of gambling have reached a whole new level. I understand what you are saying by perhaps a lesser share, however, the case being is that again, these people randomly contributed at different times from the onslaught of entering into this verbal agreement, i.e. Sam contributed x amount of dollars this week and susie didn’t, then next week Bob contributed x amount of dollars and sam didn’t ect, ect. And, we don’t know if someone covered the others portion on any given week, as this opens another can of worms, in by where they would have to prove that contention, say in a promisory note that say, stated on payday they would be reimbursed or reciepts indicating such as these are considered legal documents. Yet, at the same time, this would also show that the 4 individuals were still indirectly connected to the parties involved and would strengthen their case. I honestly do not think that if won by implied agreement, it would in turn, open a hornets nest as it is clear in this case who all the players are. meaning that one of these people would not have to support the idea of a long lost relative comming out of the woodwork, claiming a false promised share of the kitty, as again the players are specific to this case and the long lost relative by proxy, has been proven to have no direct bearing to the agreement. Within your last sentence, holds the indelible key. Anytime money is in agreement, for goods, services, and in this case the shared Lottery winnings, you have got to get it in writting. Anything else, you hope you are dealing with an individual that is as good as their name speaks for them. :)

By HA BIBI on 01/06/2009 9:36 pm

e-mail alert

think of this scenario, Elaine. if the group bought 20 tickets every week, and every week there was at least one winning ticket (free ticket, $2 win, etc.) and this win was added to the pot to purchase the following week’s tickets, until a week passed without any winning tickets at all, everyone who had participated prior to the big win could potentially stake a claim because they had contributed in some small part to the purchase of the final super ticket. Claimants could date back the 5 years.

By Buh- Bye on 01/07/2009 10:23 am

e-mail alert

Hi MA, Let me see. Here is the way I see this play out. Number 1, if they in any way were involved in the contributions, they in all practicality, are intitled to a share of those winnings as well. However, if say I were to start a lottery pool at the office, I would lay down difinitive ground rules, such as a commitment from each person on a weekly basis and if an individual was not studious to that agreement, it would be stipulated in writting, that they were out of the pool and would agree to such by signing said document. Office pools are a big thing and depending on the amount of participants, one should take great care in organizing it and that begins with the establishing of solid ground rules that are in writting.

By HA BIBI on 01/07/2009 11:03 am

e-mail alert

My office does this with our lottery here in VA…There is a bunch of us that go in each month to get the lottery tickets. If someone doesnt have the money or is out we chip in and buy that person a ticket, knowing we will get our money back. If winnings from previous lotto tickets bought the winning lotto ticket and the previous tickets were bought by ALL parties then all parties should claim the winnings. Greed does do really terrible things to people.

By C Hardy on 01/06/2009 4:40 pm

e-mail alert

When a bunch of people get together for a bunch of money, you’d better have a written agreement because if you don’t there will be a bunch of lawsuits.

By Diana T on 01/06/2009 11:41 pm