[Walt.]

Amazing how generous people are with other peoples money. It's ONLY $200,000 each?

I bet she still hasn't coughed up the $1.

[graciegirl]

Hmmmm. Let me see. Would only 200K be the reason to break up a friendship?

Was it a Mahjong friendship or I was in her wedding friendship?

Not that that matters....

(JUST KIDDING!)

[chuckster]

Originally Posted by Walt.

Amazing how generous people are with other peoples money. It's ONLY $200,000 each?

I bet she still hasn't coughed up the $1.

Bingo....you got it!

[Talk Host]

I'm wondering how many times this person may have missed paying the $1. Was this the first time or was it a regular occurrence? Was she in fact part of the group, or was she just an occasional contributor? Did the others, in fact, pitch in for a missing person from time to time or not.

Was the ticket acutually owned 7 ways or 6 ways. That is to say, did somebody put the $1 in for her then after the win declare two shares. Or, since she didn't pay, was she left out altogether and only six tickets purchased. IF somebody put it a dollar for her, then that person owns a double share of the win.

There is a reason that she is being exluded. It's not likely that ALL six of the others would be in agreement to leave her out without a sound reason.

[Pturner]

Originally Posted by redwitch

From what I understand, there are usually between 6 and 14 who participate. Occasionally, some of the golfers don't show up, servers are off. Sometimes one will "front" for another; sometimes they won't. She was off and claims someone fronted her. Guess it's up to whomever supposedly paid her $1.00 to either admit or deny (or she's going to have to prove she gave her $1.00 to someone -- difficult thing to do).

It could be any of the following scenarios:

1. She's being cheated by the other winners.

2. She's trying to scam her way into the winnings.

3. She's innocent of scamming but really has no right to any of the winnings because no one paid her share.

4. Someone forgot to mention that $1.00 was for her and now is afraid to step up.

Regardless, no one should be too quick to condemn anyone in this. They could all be innocent. We just don't have the facts.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Talk Host

I'm wondering how many times this person may have missed paying the $1. Was this the first time or was it a regular occurrence? Was she in fact part of the group, or was she just an occasional contributor? Did the others, in fact, pitch in for a missing person from time to time or not.

Was the ticket acutually owned 7 ways or 6 ways. That is to say, did somebody put the $1 in for her then after the win declare two shares. Or, since she didn't pay, was she left out altogether and only six tickets purchased. IF somebody put it a dollar for her, then that person owns a double share of the win.

There is a reason that she is being exluded. It's not likely that ALL six of the others would be in agreement to leave her out without a sound reason.

Excellent questions. We don't know all the facts. Heck we know almost none of them. That article was some sorry excuse for news reporting.

[batman911]

I do not believe anyone outside of the group can make the correct call on this one.

Was this person constantly stiffing the others for her share? We do not know. Was this the first time or one of few times. Did others in group ever pay later?

First instinct is either you or in or you are not. If it was not the result of one person being a chincher, then I would vote to give them their share.

[2BNTV]

Originally Posted by skyguy79

Do all seven need to grow up or is it possible that not all agreed with their decision to exclude number eight? It's possible that this is a case of the majority rules and the real winners were in the minority.

Where I used to work, one woman handled the collection of the money and purchasing the tickets. After the purchase she would make a photocopy of all the tickets for each participant. That way each of us had our own proof that we could toss in the garbage after we lost!

I used to do the same thing when I worked at one place and it is the only way to be ethical about winning and people getting their fair share.

If I purchased additional tickets for myself, I let it be known so no one could ever claim that I cheated them.

There was a work place that all the workers in a small company purchased lottery tickets every week. One worker decided he didn't want to contribute and hid in the restroom stall. There were 20 workers and hit for a million dollars. They did not include this person and he lost a lot of money.

[Talk Host]

Here's something to think about. If you go to the store to have your numbers checked by the cashier in their machine, don't do that. If you hand your ticket to a cashier and it turns out to be a big winner, she/he now has possession of it and can claim it belongs to them. Can you imagine?

JLK

[joannej]

Originally Posted by ajbrown

I have never had any of these problems associated with winning a large lottery , but I have bought tickets for others on occasion. The way I handled it was to tell them their numbers ahead of time, mostly so they could have the excitement of seeing the drawing, but it would handle any potential confusion or hard feelings.

It will be interesting if we ever learn the facts of this current case. If they are not careful, half the money will be gone in litigation, along with half of them before they get anything.

______________________________________________

Photocopies were made of the lottery numbers and distributed to the ticket buyers when I was in a group lottery purchase. There always has to be a way to document the lottery players in case of a big win like this one. This method eliminated anyone trying to "horn in" on any winnings. In this case, there obviously was miscommunication among the Hacienda group about how many tickets to buy for the group! Live and learn!!!

[graciegirl]

Have not bought a lottery ticket in ....maybe 15 years.

I should sometime. I could win, you know.

[Walt.]

It's been about 7 months since the last post on this. Does anyone know how (or if) it was ever resolved?

.

[chuckster]

Nope........

[Leafpoker]

They are just stalling with the ball, they will start dying off. Then you get the heirs involved the it will get real wicked. Is great to watch people fight over $$$$$. All north of 466. Just a bunch of Newts. This is on it's way to being resolved. They are going to be on the Jerry springer show!

As Troy from swamp people says:
Yayayayaya

[memason]

Originally Posted by Leafpoker

They are just stalling with the ball, they will start dying off. Then you get the heirs involved the it will get real wicked. Is great to watch people fight over $$$$$. All north of 466. Just a bunch of Newts. This is on it's way to being resolved. They are going to be on the Jerry springer show!

As Troy from swamp people says:
Yayayayaya

Very interesting perspective . . .

[Bill-n-Brillo]

Originally Posted by Leafpoker

They are just stalling with the ball, they will start dying off. Then you get the heirs involved the it will get real wicked. Is great to watch people fight over $$$$$. All north of 466. Just a bunch of Newts. This is on it's way to being resolved. They are going to be on the Jerry springer show!

As Troy from swamp people says:
Yayayayaya

I know what a newt/salamander is and I know who Newt Gingrich is......but I had to look up your usage for the word. YIKES!!

You might want to take a shot at clarifying your point..........

Bill