Canada couple loses out on $1.64M jackpot

Jul 14, 2011, 11:35 am (31 comments)

Canada Super 7

Judge's ruling ends an Alberta couple's bid for a share of a 2007 Super 7 lottery jackpot

CALGARY — Relying on their friends to ensure they were covered for a lottery pool has cost an Alberta, Canada, couple $1.64 million, a judge has ruled.

In a written decision released Wednesday, Justice Suzanne Bensler said Michael and Catherine Clancy of Okotoks, Alta., weren't entitled to a percentage of a Nov. 23, 2007, $20 million jackpot.

"The plaintiffs' story is sad," Bensler said, in concluding the 21 people who did pay into the pool for the Super 7 draw were entitled to split the winnings.

"They have convinced me that they sincerely thought that their friends would ensure that they would be in the draw every time," the Court of Queen's Bench judge said.

"For their friends and acquaintances ... money became more important than friendship."

Bensler said even though the 21 participants who paid into the pool, run out of the Okotoks Elks Club, didn't earn the money, they were still entitled to the entire pot.

"One must be reminded that the defendants' wealth was acquired by luck, not by hard work," she said.

"This though does not give right to two or even one share of the lottery winnings."

While the Clancys regularly contributed when jackpots exceeded $10 million, they had stopped going to the club and weren't present when money was collected for the Nov. 23, 2007, draw.

Only one of the 21 winners, Albert Johnson, agreed they should be given a share of the cash.

Johnson had earlier settled with Clancys, agreeing to pay them $100,000 of his $952,000 cut of the winnings.

The couple's lawyer, Brian Clark, had argued a "core group" of players had entered into an agreement four years earlier to cover each other should one fail to pay.

But Bensler said what was discussed never amounted to a legal agreement on any of the participants.

"The plaintiffs have not convinced me that there was an acceptance from the members of the core group or that there was a legally binding agreement in place," she said.

The judge said even if there was a deal among the six members of the core group, including one man who no longer participated in the draws, it couldn't apply to all the players.

As a result of Bensler's ruling, pending an appeal each of the 21 winners will be given an additional $82,815.73, bringing their total prizes to $952,380.95.

Thanks to AJ for the tip.

Ottawa Sun

Comments

rdgrnr's avatarrdgrnr

They had stopped going to the club and still expected somebody to cover for them in the pool?

Nah, I don't think so.

They didn't deserve a nickel in my opinion. They're very lucky that one guy gave them 100 grand cuz they definitely didn't deserve it.

Just another example of why I don't like pools; I wonder how much the lawyers grabbed on this deal?

B$Rizzle's avatarB$Rizzle

Quote: Originally posted by rdgrnr on Jul 14, 2011

They had stopped going to the club and still expected somebody to cover for them in the pool?

Nah, I don't think so.

They didn't deserve a nickel in my opinion. They're very lucky that one guy gave them 100 grand cuz they definitely didn't deserve it.

Just another example of why I don't like pools; I wonder how much the lawyers grabbed on this deal?

I AGREE...Bottom line, if you pay to play, then you get a share if the pool wins. If you miss a couple draws, then you are OUT for those draws.

 

I'm sorry but when I was running a pool I told everyone "I will not spot you for the draw, if you want to participate I need the $$ by this date/time"

 

If they wanted to participat that bad, they should have made a special trip to the person collenting the money to drop off cash. I had people do this on several occasions. I even allowed some of them to paypal me the $$ since they were out of town, but at least they paid.

I don't think these people deserve any of it.

 

It would be different if it was a long time pool player that participated EVERY week, and then that player had a terrible accident and ended up in the hospital and thats why they couldnt play. But, in this situation thats not the case.

 

Judge B$Rizzle says "Case closed, you dont get chit"

RJOh's avatarRJOh

If Michael and Catherine Clancy had continued to reimburse their friends as they continue to play the lottery and won nothing then they might have had a case.  How anyone could think their friends would ensure that they would be in the pool every time without any expectations of reimbursements is beyond me.  Their story is not sad but stupid and stupid doesn't pay.

sully16's avatarsully16

No pay , no win.

dallascowboyfan's avatardallascowboyfan

Quote: Originally posted by rdgrnr on Jul 14, 2011

They had stopped going to the club and still expected somebody to cover for them in the pool?

Nah, I don't think so.

They didn't deserve a nickel in my opinion. They're very lucky that one guy gave them 100 grand cuz they definitely didn't deserve it.

Just another example of why I don't like pools; I wonder how much the lawyers grabbed on this deal?

I Agree!

faber98

this never should have seen a courtroom. they are being unfair to the people who paid by contesting this. stay out of pools. this happens too often when the group takes one down. which isn't often but there always seems to be a problem when a group hits.

joker17

I've seen enough episodes of People's Court, Judge Judy and others to know better...Written agreement...PERIOD !

maringoman's avatarmaringoman

I agree with the judge and the members of this forum. Justice was served.

It makes me upset that the winning group had to incur attorney fees defending

 what was clearly their money. This case should have been thrown out at hearing!

RJOh's avatarRJOh

Quote: Originally posted by joker17 on Jul 14, 2011

I've seen enough episodes of People's Court, Judge Judy and others to know better...Written agreement...PERIOD !

I doubt if their friends would have signed an agreement like the one they thought they had, that is split their future lottery winnings with them even though they contribute nothing to the cost of tickets.

haymaker's avatarhaymaker

agree w/ the judge's dicision, but don't like her attitude,she said the 21 participants did't earn the money,well maybe they did't use hammers, shovels & trucks,but they used their $ earned somehow and risked them on this game, the plantiff did not.i went fishing on party boat today where everyone on board has the option of joining the betting pool, $5 ea. the guy next to me declined,he caught the biggest doormat ,the angler w/ 2nd biggest flattie won the pool.

larry3100's avatarlarry3100

Right on Ridge. I hear about it on occasion "I was in that lottery pool too!" You don't pay,you don't play!.I Agree!

CashWinner$

Wow - More nutty plaintiffs!

A never ending stream of entertainment. LOL

ttech10's avatarttech10

Quote: Originally posted by rdgrnr on Jul 14, 2011

They had stopped going to the club and still expected somebody to cover for them in the pool?

Nah, I don't think so.

They didn't deserve a nickel in my opinion. They're very lucky that one guy gave them 100 grand cuz they definitely didn't deserve it.

Just another example of why I don't like pools; I wonder how much the lawyers grabbed on this deal?

I had missed that line where they stopped going, and so before reading this I was feeling bad for them.

But, since it doesn't look like it was that they simply missed putting in their money for one draw (which I assumed), I don't really feel sorry for them not getting a share of the winnings. Seriously, if you leave a pool/club and then expect to be brought back in for that one draw that won, you need to get a slapping to bring you back to reality.

KY Floyd's avatarKY Floyd

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on Jul 14, 2011

I doubt if their friends would have signed an agreement like the one they thought they had, that is split their future lottery winnings with them even though they contribute nothing to the cost of tickets.

Did we read the same article? Here's what it said in the one I read:

"While the Clancys regularly contributed when jackpots exceeded $10 million, they had stopped going to the club and weren't present when money was collected for the Nov. 23, 2007, draw."

They were contributing to the cost of tickets, but didn't pay ahead of time for that particular drawing.  If they weren't there when money was collected for previous drawings but contibuted their share for (losing)  tickets after the fact I would see that as an implicit agreement with the others. Unfortunately the article says nothing about what happened for any other drawings, so I don't know whether they previously paid before the drawings even if they weren't at the club, or if the group accepted payment after the fact.  As always, pools should have a written contract that unambiguously spells out the requirements.

Subscribe to this news story