PA man ordered to give former girlfriend half of $100,000 lottery prize

Oct 12, 2020, 12:30 pm (15 comments)

Pennsylvania Lottery

He broke up with her a week after winning

By Kate Northrop

CARBONDALE, Pa. — A Pennsylvania Superior Court panel ruled on Friday that a man who split from his long-time girlfriend one week after winning $100,000 from a scratch-off lottery ticket must give her half the winnings.

During a period of attempted reconciliation in February 2018, Jeffrey Jones and Ruthann Colachino were ecstatic to win a $100,000 prize from the "Bingo Squared" scratch-off game.

The money used to buy the winning ticket came from a sizable tax refund of $5,501 from claiming their child as a dependent, therefore Jones agreed to share the refund with Colachino. Shortly after midnight on Feb. 22, 2018 Jones received the money in his bank account, and the pair immediately went out to the local Turkey Hill Minit Market to buy some lottery tickets.

Court documents cite that both Jones and Colachino were frequent shoppers at the convenience store and were well-known for purchasing lottery tickets in each other's company. The couple returned to their shared home, where Jones scratched off the winning ticket to discover that it was a prize-winning ticket worth $100,000.

"The parties were understandably elated, and loudly professed their shared intention to use the money to leave public housing and buy a home together with the winnings," court documents read.

That same day, the winners claimed their prize at the Pennsylvania Lottery Office in Middletown, which totaled $72,930 after taxes. Despite the joyous windfall, things weren't happy for long.

One week later on March 3, 2018, Jones broke off his relationship with Colachino. They never bought a home, and Jones did not share a single cent of the lottery winnings with his former girlfriend.

Colachino promptly filed a complaint on March 15 that accused Jones of violating the agreement they had to equally share the lottery winnings.

Following a lengthy and in-depth review of the case, including surveillance footage at the convenience store and testimonies from Jones, Colachino, and even the clerk who sold the winning ticket, a Lackawanna County judge ruled on Oct. 8, 2019 that both Jones and Colachino were involved in a joint venture, and that Colachino was entitled to one half of the proceeds from the winning lottery ticket.

Jones appealed the decision, arguing that there was truly never a joint venture between him and his then-girlfriend because they did not combine resources for the purposes of purchasing lottery tickets. Rather, he claimed, they made their own individual purchases. He also inferred that any verbal agreement to split the winnings is a resulting trust, and that the imposition of a resulting trust can only be made through a court in equity.

Judge Mary Jane Bowes denied his post-trial motions on Nov. 15, 2019 and concluded that Colachino was indeed entitled to her fair share of the prize based on testimony, video evidence, and the fact that the pair had jointly bought the ticket. Even after the purchase, both parties "enjoyed a 'right of mutual control' over the lottery tickets, as evinced by their inability to differentiate amongst the tickets purchased."

"Contrary to Mr. Jones arguments, his testimony evinces a clear intent to use the winnings for the mutual benefit of the parties," Bowes determined.

Lottery Post Staff

Comments

Raven62's avatarRaven62

Party Congrats to the Ex Couple! Party

noise-gate

.. so in Jeff's world, Ruthann is worthy of carrying his child, but not worthy of geting half the winnings? Good to read that the judge saw through his BS

ConstantlyB's avatarConstantlyB

BOTH should have signed the ticket. Greed reared it's ugly head.

TheGameGrl's avatarTheGameGrl

Quote: Originally posted by ConstantlyB on Oct 12, 2020

BOTH should have signed the ticket. Greed reared it's ugly head.

I hadn't thought of that. If it was claimed together . 

When an associate won a large chunk, he and his friend had to file the claim based on ratio of split funds. 60-40, 50-50. Whatever their agreement was. So would not muddy the waters .

TheGameGrl's avatarTheGameGrl

Quote: Originally posted by noise-gate on Oct 12, 2020

.. so in Jeff's world, Ruthann is worthy of carrying his child, but not worthy of geting half the winnings? Good to read that the judge saw through his BS

You might want to apply that voice of reason. 

The offspring is irrelevant. 

This is about a verbal contract. A he said, she took. Typical ....*sigh*

Stack47

Quote: Originally posted by TheGameGrl on Oct 12, 2020

You might want to apply that voice of reason. 

The offspring is irrelevant. 

This is about a verbal contract. A he said, she took. Typical ....*sigh*

"The money used to buy the winning ticket came from a sizable tax refund of $5,501 from claiming their child as a dependent, therefore Jones agreed to share the refund with Colachino.  "

Didn't read the trial transcripts, but since it's in the article, it appears the offspring is very relevant. It would be more likely a "he said, she said" if they didn't live together and have a child. I really doubt any judge would ignore the relationship they were in the day the ticket was purchased.

Edited to add: If two LP members agreed to split an MM, PB, or lotto prize and posted it in one of the forums, is that a binding agreement?

noise-gate

Quote: Originally posted by TheGameGrl on Oct 12, 2020

You might want to apply that voice of reason. 

The offspring is irrelevant. 

This is about a verbal contract. A he said, she took. Typical ....*sigh*

You obviously have no children, since you not thinking like a Mother. However If you had a child from this Jeff & he pulled the same shenanigans with you- would you feel it was no big deal? How about that reasoning? 

Raven62's avatarRaven62

Quote: Originally posted by Raven62 on Oct 12, 2020

Party Congrats to the Ex Couple! Party

And Welcome to the World of Palimony!

Palimony is the division of financial assets and real property on the termination of a personal live-in relationship wherein the parties are not legally married.

FYI: The term palimony is not a legal or historical term, but rather a colloquial portmanteau of the words pal and alimony.

Artist77's avatarArtist77

Quote: Originally posted by Raven62 on Oct 12, 2020

And Welcome to the World of Palimony!

Palimony is the division of financial assets and real property on the termination of a personal live-in relationship wherein the parties are not legally married.

FYI: The term palimony is not a legal or historical term, but rather a colloquial portmanteau of the words pal and alimony.

And that is taken directly from Wikipedia.  I know I have pointed this out before but it is always better and honest to attribute your sources and verbatim quotes.

cottoneyedjoe's avatarcottoneyedjoe

I feel sorry for that child.

DrMiracle

 I have no clue what kind of jobLurking they do for a living, and since they are living in "public housing"Patriot,    they might be getting Subsidized CoverageEek 

But they do spend money on gambling. ROFL

Since Jones lost the case in Court, he has to pay the attorney fees for both parties out of $ 72,930.  And now they may not qualify for state benefits. Do they?

TheMeatman2005's avatarTheMeatman2005

After taxes, they collected $72, 930.

I wonder how much remained after all the legal and lawyer's fees were paid.

TheGameGrl's avatarTheGameGrl

Quote: Originally posted by noise-gate on Oct 12, 2020

You obviously have no children, since you not thinking like a Mother. However If you had a child from this Jeff & he pulled the same shenanigans with you- would you feel it was no big deal? How about that reasoning? 

And obviously you'd be incorrect.  Parent of two fine men. They are adults. 

As I stated the issue is about the agreed upon  'claim' and how it was filed. 

And yes I would feel it's no big deal. Then again i'd have filed the form that allows multiple claimants that the state lottery has . Smart folks under stand that much. 

So there goes your reasoning ...down the drain.

TheGameGrl's avatarTheGameGrl

The PA state lottery requires all claimants of the winning ticket to fill out the claims form BEFORE hand . The primary claimant then sends in the documents with winning ticket. . This is then processed and reported to the IRS for large claims. After which the main claimant is then required to distribute n accordance  with the claims percentage. 

 

His lawyer could have easily researched if that form was remitted for both to claim .

Subscribe to this news story