Q: When is there a partnership to share lottery winnings?
A: This is a question increasingly showing up before our courts. Even if the ticket is in one name or in the possession of one party, the courts have found in certain cases that the holder of the ticket holds the winnings in trust for other people. In situations where a husband and wife or common law spouses are involved, there is an assumption that the lottery winnings are to be shared.
A recent Ontario case, B vs. H, involved a dispute over ownership of a $100,000 prize in a Red Cross lottery. B and H knew each other well and regularly shared lottery tickets such as the 6-49, Super 7 or Nevada tickets. H worked in a lottery shop, located in a mall where B had once worked. Any proceeds from their earlier winnings, which were small, were reinvested in tickets.
Read Also
Ask tough questions to determine if business still works
Across the country, a hard conversation is unfolding. Many producers are starting to ask a tougher question: can we keep doing this the way we always have?
B alleged that he had contributed half the cost of the Red Cross ticket. The circumstances surrounding the purchase were less than clear.
The draw was June 28, 2001. A month later B learned that H had won a big prize in a lottery. When B heard there might be a big local winner, he asked his daughter to search the internet for possible local winners. She found the announcement of the Red Cross win and said her father was upset when she told him. The next day he told his wife that he might be a part winner. However, on checking with the Red Cross office in Toronto he found that his name was not on the winning ticket.
The judge found contradictory evidence as to whether the sharing arrangement applied to the ticket in question. B testified that he went to the mall for coffee with a friend M. They met H, who asked if he was interested in sharing a $40 Red Cross lottery ticket. He stated they then went to the lottery shop and he gave her $20 for the ticket. The Red Cross lottery tickets were not sold through the shop. M corroborated what B said, and further noted the $20 bill was not placed in the lottery shop’s till. B’s wife also testified that when B came home he told her he had bought a Red Cross lottery ticket with H. B’s daughter also testified along a similar vein.
When B asked about the $20, H told him it was for 6-49 tickets, even though they had never purchased that amount at one time and that the money was not placed in the till.
The defendant’s testimony was somewhat different. First, she bought three tickets (two for her daughters) and paid for them with her credit card. She also said when she bought tickets jointly, it was her practice to put both names on the tickets and to give the other person the ticket to hold. The implication was that in this case, since it hadn’t been done, it was her ticket alone.
Nevertheless, the judge ruled, “I do not accept that the defendant’s practice of placing the partner’s name on a joint ticket is definitive proof of the partnership. Memory fails all of us at all times, especially when we do not act immediately.” The judge also found H was vague and contradictory on several points in her testimony.
In the end, while finding uncertainties in evidence on both sides, the judge concluded there was an agreement to jointly purchase a Red Cross lottery ticket and to share proceeds if any. He awarded judgment to B in the amount of $50,000, half the winning prize.
Don Purich is a former practising lawyer who is now involved in publishing, teaching and writing about legal issues. His columns are intended as general advice only. Individuals are encouraged to seek other opinions and/or personal counsel when dealing with legal matters.
