$2 million Hoosier Lottery winner has to give ex-wife $50,000

Apr 24, 2014, 11:48 am (51 comments)

Indiana Lottery

A man who won $2 million in the Hoosier Lottery while separated from his wife has to give her only 2.5 percent of the winnings, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

The decision upholds a 2012 Allen Superior Court ruling in which Jose De Jesus Carrillo Perez was ordered to pay his ex-wife, Maria Guadalupe Vidrios Zepeda, $10,000 each year for five years from the money he won on a scratch-off ticket in 2011.

The couple married in February 2002. They separated in March 2006, but neither filed for legal separation or divorce at the time.

"During the next six years," the court order said, "the couple spoke only two or three times, never commingled assets, had separate bank accounts, and generally lived as single individuals."

In January 2011, Carrillo Perez won the $2 million. That March he filed for divorce. It was granted June 19, 2012.

After Carrillo Perez won the lottery, his estranged wife wanted a share of it, said Fort Wayne attorney Mark C. Chambers, who represented Carrillo Perez. He said Vidrios Zepeda initially asked for $1.4 million.

"The interesting thing for us was that the parties were separated physically, but they didn't file for divorce," Chambers said. "In the legal scheme, they were still married and the assets they accrued under standard divorce law would belong to both of them, and the presumption would be that they would be split 50-50.

"But this case was unique. When they split up, the wife took everything, and there was almost no contact for nearly six years until Jose won the lottery."

In ruling that Vidrios Zepeda was not entitled to an equal split of the marital assets, including the lottery receipts, the Court of Appeals said Allen Superior Court Judge Charles F. Pratt "found that the extended physical separation, during which time no funds were ever commingled and each person lived as an individual, justified limiting (Vidrios Zepeda's) equitable interest in the lottery winnings."

Judges in "separate property" states such as Indiana may divide assets "in any manner that is just and reasonable, and that determination depends on the facts of the case," said Margaret Ryznar, a professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis.

"Often the court will divide marital assets in a proportion resembling 50-50, but there is room for departure depending on the court's judgment," she explained.

"Here, the departure is not surprising given that the husband and wife were living entirely separate lives by the time of the lotto winnings. Thus, while this is an interesting case to see how an Indiana court would divide lotto winnings in an estranged marriage, the result may differ in the next case depending on the facts of that marriage."

Matthew Williams, the Fort Wayne attorney who represented Vidrios Zepeda, did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Indianapolis Star

Comments

Marilyn222's avatarMarilyn222

It's just right. Lol

magic 007

Does she get 2.5% of the cash value or of the Advertised value in this case being 2M ?. jeessh i would hope its the former. Unhappy

THRIFTY's avatarTHRIFTY

Quote: Originally posted by Marilyn222 on Apr 24, 2014

It's just right. Lol

Is it fair to say that marriage is a legal contract?

THRIFTY's avatarTHRIFTY

Quote: Originally posted by magic 007 on Apr 24, 2014

Does she get 2.5% of the cash value or of the Advertised value in this case being 2M ?. jeessh i would hope its the former. Unhappy

She gets $50k from the lump sum. It looks like he took the cash value.

Marilyn222's avatarMarilyn222

Quote: Originally posted by THRIFTY on Apr 24, 2014

Is it fair to say that marriage is a legal contract?

Yes, marriage is a legal contract between two parties. It is a binding agreement that includes prenuptial...hehehe

dallascowboyfan's avatardallascowboyfan

No contact for 6 years $50,000 is better than nothing with.

THRIFTY's avatarTHRIFTY

Quote: Originally posted by dallascowboyfan on Apr 24, 2014

No contact for 6 years $50,000 is better than nothing with.

I agree. $50k is a consolation prize.

THRIFTY's avatarTHRIFTY

Quote: Originally posted by Marilyn222 on Apr 24, 2014

Yes, marriage is a legal contract between two parties. It is a binding agreement that includes prenuptial...hehehe

It is the reason people are afraid of marriage in the USA.

noise-gate

Quote: Originally posted by THRIFTY on Apr 24, 2014

It is the reason people are afraid of marriage in the USA.

Which people?- oh, you mean those who are afraid to commit to a relationship huh Thrifty?
The same bunch that string a woman or man along for years while reaping the benefits and when they tired of the so called " same old" they kick them to the curb?
Last month the drummer of Motley Crue whose 55 got married for the 3rd time to a 28 year old,  some folk who posted comments said " Stop marrying your daughters". Yikes.
Its quite possible that had this taken place in California- he would have had to fork over 50% of his winnings.

mrcraft's avatarmrcraft

The ex-wife is a piece of work.  She initially asked for $1.4 million.  Isn't that everything plus more after taxes...

HaveABall's avatarHaveABall

Quote: Originally posted by magic 007 on Apr 24, 2014

Does she get 2.5% of the cash value or of the Advertised value in this case being 2M ?. jeessh i would hope its the former. Unhappy

Magic 007, it appears to be the latter.  As the possibly fair $50,000 judgment award [that's $10,000 -- non-taxed again by Fed and State, paid five times annually to his wife during the time of win and claim) is 2.5% of the full advertised $2,000,000 annuitized jackpot win. 

I understand your confusion though, the article never stated, so we readers have no idea, if he received the annuitized value (paying lower annual taxes 30 times in a much lower tax bracket) or the cash value (receiving 1 payment and paying much higher tax bracket).  The article didn't indicate if either are U.S.A. Citizens, so his taxes [she doesn't pay taxes, since it's an judgment award he pays after he first pays fed and state taxers] could be lower if not.

Cheers! Cheers

mypiemaster's avatarmypiemaster

GOLD DIGGER ALERT!!!

.....If your spouse's love is toxic to you, I reckon the  money should be equally toxic to you as well.

.....If your spouse is not getting the love, he/she should not be paying for loverboy/girl, banging you during their free time.

.....Trying to take all the money and more, gives a clue as to how you felt about the relationship.

.....These "stupid" judges should understand that no love equals no money.

.....Is there anybody on this forum that likes to see the community banging their spouse while they foot the bill?.

.....NO LOVE = NO MONEY!!!.

pickone4me's avatarpickone4me

Screwed over twice,  that's america for ya.

maringoman's avatarmaringoman

Jose De Jesus Carrillo Perez should be happy he does not live in the wonderful state of Massachusetts. The progressive judges here would have given Maria Guadalupe Vidrios Zepeda (did they meet at a names contest? LOL) half the jp and a lifetime of alimony. 

Subscribe to this news story