Former fiancé sues $188 million Powerball jackpot winner

Feb 16, 2021, 11:28 am (47 comments)

After the Big Win

By Kate Northrop

The ex-fiancé of a North Carolina Powerball winner is suing her for allegedly giving away over a million dollars' worth of property he claims were gifts given to him by her.

Lamarr McDow, the former fiancé of $188 million Powerball winner Marie Holmes, filed a lawsuit against her after she reportedly gave away his gifts consisting of cars, clothes, and miscellaneous property that totaled over $1.4 million in value.

Holmes lived with her then-boyfriend McDow at the time of her win. She met him back in 2012 when she was working at McDonald's and Walmart and living with her mother and three children in a mobile home. Since the couple began dating, they had two children together.

After splitting the $564 million Powerball jackpot with two other winners in February 2015, Holmes opted to receive a lump sum payout of $127 million and kept $88 million after taxes. She used her lottery winnings to buy a $250,000 house and moved in with McDow for about a year.

Between 2015 and 2016, the Powerball winner lavishly spent her winnings on her boyfriend. According to the federal lawsuit, these purchases included a $250,000 modified 2015 Chevrolet Stingray, $100,000 worth of clothes and jewelry, and an automotive restoration business for $600,000. Overall, the value of her gifts to him exceeded $1.4 million.

Documents state that, although "the automobiles and trucks listed above were titled in different names, there were witnesses, including the title holders that were present when Ms. Holmes voluntarily relinquished her ownership and control of the purchased vehicles by immediately turning over the keys to the vehicles to Mr. McDow for his exclusive use."

In January 2016, McDow pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to traffic heroin following his arrest in November 2014. He was sentenced as part of a plea agreement to a minimum of 7.5 years in prison and was ordered to pay a $100,000 fine.

The lawsuit states that that McDow executed a general Power-of-Attorney in January 2016 naming Holmes, his then fiancée, as his agent in anticipation of his impending incarceration. Therefore, it claims that Holmes wrongfully sold or gave away personal property that was entrusted to her for safekeeping without disclosing any of the transactions to McDow.

"As Mr. McDow's agent, Ms. Holmes was a fiduciary with respect to matters within the scope of her agency," the lawsuit says. "Mr. McDow authorized Ms. Holmes to store, maintain, and protect his real and personal property during his incarceration."

According to court documents, the couple also appeared on a television show in 2016. In an interview, she openly acknowledged purchasing the items listed in the lawsuit as gifts for McDow.

McDow is set to be released from prison in 2023.

DOCUMENT: Read the full lawsuit

Lottery Post Staff

Comments

Jorli D's avatarJorli D

Stupid is as stupid does.

Bleudog101

I hope that the Judge dismisses the case with prejudice so he can't try again to sue her if I understand that jargon correctly.

But she was stupid for staying with him and bailing him out.   That should account for something all the money she lost on that loser.

She was on Lottery Changed My Life I believe and her Mom was the only one with any lick of intelligence out of the three of them.   The picture of the expensive play things for the kids strewn across the property; talking about ATV's etc was almost too much.

CDanaT's avatarCDanaT

If memory serves me correctly, I believe that this outstanding taxpayer was referred to as " Hot Sauce" back in the day of his dabbling of the opioid substance ........ Just curious Marie, how's all this working out for ya ??   

Bleudog101

Shoveling snow and ice and remembered was Iyanla Fix my life who featured a story on her and him, not Lottery Change my Life as I incorrectly stated.

partlycloudy07

Gifts are just that in NC you can't be a Indian giver here also he signed a POA apparently he doesn't understand in his drug induced state what a POA is 

 

North Carolina General Statute § 32C-1-102(9) defines a  power of attorney as a “writing or other record that grants authority to an agent to act in the place of the principal, whether or not the term  power of attorney is used.” Under North Carolina General Statute § 32C-1-102(11), the person granting authority in a ... with a

 

POA that is valid you don't have to have original signer if the cars were not in his name it doesn't matter anyway NC frowns upon selling a car to someone that doesn't posses a valid DL . 

 

This lawsuit will come down to ethics the remorse of the ex selling his "gifts" although it concerns me they were not in his name a judge will have to see the intention on both sides but sounds like to me when the money ran out or she broke it off with him she should not have used her POA to sell his "gifts" . Maybe he thought if she was broke she would take all his toys back to the tiny trailer that she lived in before she got rich

noise-gate

Quote: Originally posted by CDanaT on Feb 16, 2021

If memory serves me correctly, I believe that this outstanding taxpayer was referred to as " Hot Sauce" back in the day of his dabbling of the opioid substance ........ Just curious Marie, how's all this working out for ya ??   

Yes, it's him. That " hot sauce " gravy train finally came to a screeching halt!

Cassie8620's avatarCassie8620

was hoping i would learn:

Frown-after IYANLA.OPRAH interview she was doing even better and i still hope that for her children,herself, in my state here in NC

 

and i then read this with an ex-guy in her life, Lamar.

smh. still praying for her.

 

Also,i'm hating to know she spent so much cash on a guy in jail,her partner or 1 of the kids father, i didn't like that,but still again wishing her the best.

spirit38

It's her loss, she should have never bought him anything. She technically owes him those things back if they were really bought for him. I remember their story on one of the series I had watched, she was stupid how she handled her money, and she never only bailed him out once it was over 3 different times. She should have kicked him out of her life before she even claimed her lottery win.

noise-gate

Quote: Originally posted by spirit38 on Feb 16, 2021

It's her loss, she should have never bought him anything. She technically owes him those things back if they were really bought for him. I remember their story on one of the series I had watched, she was stupid how she handled her money, and she never only bailed him out once it was over 3 different times. She should have kicked him out of her life before she even claimed her lottery win.

She came to her senses, and that's  what matters.lt would be catastrophic if he bled her dry.

KY Floyd's avatarKY Floyd

"lt would be catastrophic if he bled her dry."

It sounds like he's asking for less than $1.5 million, based on the value of property that, if it was in fact given as gift, belonged to him. If that's enough to bleed her dry it's not his fault even if the property was never his.

Artist77's avatarArtist77

Their children are named Chili sauce, Sweet and Sour sauce, and Tomato sauce. I knew I would have a chance to use that line again.

In all seriousness, the sole question is whether these items were gifts so I doubt the case will be dismissed. I think she will end up paying some money out. These items do sound like gifts regardless of them both being idiots. The fact that she disposed of the items during his prison sentence, is not a point in her favor either.

En ReVal

so he wanted her to hold onto this stuff for 8 yrs?

HaveABall's avatarHaveABall

Artist77 I Agree!.  Once Marie decided to break off her relationship with Lamar, she should have filed to be removed as his legal POA.

Lamar's next POA (either personally or court appointed) should have been aprized of his assets and where they were.  It would have been up to Lamar and the POA to decide which clothing, cars, businesses, etc. needed to begin being advertised for sale in order to pay for maintaining/creating: term life insurance policy (with all his children listed as beneficiaries), car and miscellaneous possession storage units, etc.

noise-gate

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on Feb 16, 2021

"lt would be catastrophic if he bled her dry."

It sounds like he's asking for less than $1.5 million, based on the value of property that, if it was in fact given as gift, belonged to him. If that's enough to bleed her dry it's not his fault even if the property was never his.

l was thinking " had he not" gone to prison Floyd, thus my comment- but l hear you.

cottoneyedjoe's avatarcottoneyedjoe

Hot Sauce, I am here for you. Selling a man's leaf blower is a line you just do not cross.

sweetie7398's avatarsweetie7398

I pray that Marie and her family are doing wellBlue AngelSaucee 🙄 needs to take several seats far away from her and leave her alone. He's a leach.🤨😡

MrLotto$

You know what he wants to do to her.... he's a dummy she's a dummy that's the way the world goes round

Stat$talker's avatarStat$talker

Quote: Originally posted by partlycloudy07 on Feb 16, 2021

Gifts are just that in NC you can't be a Indian giver here also he signed a POA apparently he doesn't understand in his drug induced state what a POA is 

 

North Carolina General Statute § 32C-1-102(9) defines a  power of attorney as a “writing or other record that grants authority to an agent to act in the place of the principal, whether or not the term  power of attorney is used.” Under North Carolina General Statute § 32C-1-102(11), the person granting authority in a ... with a

 

POA that is valid you don't have to have original signer if the cars were not in his name it doesn't matter anyway NC frowns upon selling a car to someone that doesn't posses a valid DL . 

 

This lawsuit will come down to ethics the remorse of the ex selling his "gifts" although it concerns me they were not in his name a judge will have to see the intention on both sides but sounds like to me when the money ran out or she broke it off with him she should not have used her POA to sell his "gifts" . Maybe he thought if she was broke she would take all his toys back to the tiny trailer that she lived in before she got rich

"POA that is valid you don't have to have original signer if the cars were not in his name it doesn't matter anyway NC frowns upon selling a car to someone that doesn't posses a valid DL ."

 

Well, there's a lesson to be learned by all you "Legal Pundits" here... In my Johnnie Cochran opinion... "DL" are issued by a State granting permission to engage in "Commercial" transportation...!!

The U.S. Constitution protects citizen's right to travel... whether it's down the street, across town, or across the Country!..So, one doesn't need "Driver's License".. unless you ARE a Commercial "Driver".. ex.. Taxi, Tractor-Trailer, Bus, Limousine, Police, Uber, Grubhub, Mail Carrier..etc... Using the public roads to make a profit...

Congress gave States the right to regulate "Commerce", ..not the right to regulate "Constitutional Rights"..!! cause somewhere I've read...

"All Men are created equal, and that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights,..among those are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"..!!

Now, back in the day, when a horse and buggy were the main mode of transportation, you didn't need a "License" to ride a horse, .. you still aren't required to have license to ride a horse TODAY..! You don't buy a car, simply to let it sit in your driveway.. it's used to convey one's right to travel...!!

The "Automobile" merely replaced the "horse and buggy"..So, as long as the Advalorem taxes/Tag are paid on your vehicle?.. it's legally allowed on any public road..regardless to whether you have Driver's Licenses or not..!!

So, those Cars are his, if she indeed bought them for him, and the State of NC had better turn that "frown".. upside down..!. and project a Sunny nClear..  instead of partlyCloudy  attitude..!!

 

-Stat$talker 

hearsetrax's avatarhearsetrax

Quote: Originally posted by MrLotto$ on Feb 17, 2021

You know what he wants to do to her.... he's a dummy she's a dummy that's the way the world goes round

Cheers

Rman313's avatarRman313

Quote: Originally posted by Jorli D on Feb 16, 2021

Stupid is as stupid does.

Right! She should have gotten rid of him on day one! Now she is paying  for it! She has spent millions on that guy keep him out of prison! That's what happens when you date a idiot.😒

Bleudog101

Wasn't she just sued by her church's Pastor for more money?

 

She'll be @ the prison gate in 2023 waiting for Mr. Wonderful to come out and get into trouble again.   The vicious cycle will continue until she gets killed or ends up broke!

db101's avatardb101

Quote: Originally posted by Bleudog101 on Feb 17, 2021

Wasn't she just sued by her church's Pastor for more money?

 

She'll be @ the prison gate in 2023 waiting for Mr. Wonderful to come out and get into trouble again.   The vicious cycle will continue until she gets killed or ends up broke!

Hopefully he'll croak before she does.

EnReval

She had a 2nd child by him when he went bk to jail in 2016

EnReval

Have family that lives not too far fr her hometown and she's moved on to Seattle.  Been gone for abt 4 yrs

Bleudog101

Quote: Originally posted by EnReval on Feb 17, 2021

Have family that lives not too far fr her hometown and she's moved on to Seattle.  Been gone for abt 4 yrs

I remember her Mom coming from Seattle on the Iyanla show.   Is this the one you're talking about?   I wish her Daughter would've moved out West.   She's the only one that memory serves me had any common sense.

EnReval

Ues same family. The daughter Fontella Marie Holmes did leave the NC area and moved to Seattle.

the weird thing is that on the Iyanla show, it mentions that the mom dreamed the numbers and that's how she won but the ticket was a quick-pick.

 

 

 I guess ahe dreamed the numbers and they appeared on a quick  pick

KY Floyd's avatarKY Floyd

"l was thinking " had he not" gone to prison"

Oh yeah. If he'd stayed out of prison and they stayed together Im sure there's a far better chance a lot of the money would have been spent in ways that don't make a lot of sense.

 

"In my Johnnie Cochran opinion... "DL" are issued by a State granting permission to engage in "Commercial" transportation...!!"

I can't even begin to describe how surprised I am to find out that your confusion extends to things besides statistics.

"The U.S. Constitution protects citizen's right to travel..."

I've got a pretty good imagination, but I still can't imagine how dumb you have to be to think that traveling and driving a car are the same thing.

TheGameGrl's avatarTheGameGrl

Her tax filings will show if she claimed these as "gifts". If so , she is on the hook.

As to whether the property was titled in the persons name is another matter. 

North Carolina has some contradictory laws ....

 

I agree with you KyFloyd. Quite the imagination to have travel mean car,train, horse, or airplane, pogo stick, scooter, row boat  are a RIGHT.

db101's avatardb101

Quote: Originally posted by on Mar 29, 2024

Never change, Stat$.

Artist77's avatarArtist77

Quote: Originally posted by TheGameGrl on Feb 18, 2021

Her tax filings will show if she claimed these as "gifts". If so , she is on the hook.

As to whether the property was titled in the persons name is another matter. 

North Carolina has some contradictory laws ....

 

I agree with you KyFloyd. Quite the imagination to have travel mean car,train, horse, or airplane, pogo stick, scooter, row boat  are a RIGHT.

Well not sure what the right to travel has to with this case but under the privilege and immunities clause of the US Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is a constitutional right for individuals to travel between and among the states. I am not aware of any method of travel (legal and not dangerous to others) that has been specifically excluded.

Stat$talker's avatarStat$talker

Quote: Originally posted by Artist77 on Feb 18, 2021

Well not sure what the right to travel has to with this case but under the privilege and immunities clause of the US Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is a constitutional right for individuals to travel between and among the states. I am not aware of any method of travel (legal and not dangerous to others) that has been specifically excluded.

Well, it was mentioned that NC Pwrball winner bought her boyfriend cars, but that he doesn't posses a "valid driver's license"..

That's how "the right to travel" came up.. as in not needing a "License" to operate your personal vehicle,.. as long as you're NOT involved with "commercial transportation"...

*Open up a Bar ?... You need Liquor license.

* Open up a Law Office?, you need Law license..

* Open up a Doctor's Office?, you need Medical license...etc...

But when you open up your car door to get in it?....what COMMERCIAL business are you engaging in?... NONE... Therefore, you don't need "Driver's license"...!!

We all participate in the "verb"(driving)..Thumbs Up

but everyone who sits behind the steering wheel of a car is NOT A "DRIVER" (noun).! Wink

A driver is someone HIRED to drive the public roads for PROFIT..!!

Of course any State will take your money if you're dumb enough to give it away,..LOL

So, again , those cars are his to drive when he gets out of incarceration, whether he has a driver license or not..as long as the taxes are paid on them..!!

            Naaah , that's REAAL TALK..!  Green laugh

 

-Stat$talker 

cottoneyedjoe's avatarcottoneyedjoe

Quote: Originally posted by Stat$talker on Feb 18, 2021

Well, it was mentioned that NC Pwrball winner bought her boyfriend cars, but that he doesn't posses a "valid driver's license"..

That's how "the right to travel" came up.. as in not needing a "License" to operate your personal vehicle,.. as long as you're NOT involved with "commercial transportation"...

*Open up a Bar ?... You need Liquor license.

* Open up a Law Office?, you need Law license..

* Open up a Doctor's Office?, you need Medical license...etc...

But when you open up your car door to get in it?....what COMMERCIAL business are you engaging in?... NONE... Therefore, you don't need "Driver's license"...!!

We all participate in the "verb"(driving)..Thumbs Up

but everyone who sits behind the steering wheel of a car is NOT A "DRIVER" (noun).! Wink

A driver is someone HIRED to drive the public roads for PROFIT..!!

Of course any State will take your money if you're dumb enough to give it away,..LOL

So, again , those cars are his to drive when he gets out of incarceration, whether he has a driver license or not..as long as the taxes are paid on them..!!

            Naaah , that's REAAL TALK..!  Green laugh

 

-Stat$talker 

Taking your trolling to the next level: crank legal theories

Stat$talker's avatarStat$talker

Quote: Originally posted by cottoneyedjoe on Feb 18, 2021

Taking your trolling to the next level: crank legal theories

Everyone knows YOU are the trolling King..!! never without your cyber stick stirring chit up..Poke

Excuse me for not checkin with Ole cottoneyedjoe before posting my opinion..!! LOL...

Upset because you're not the only member well versed on topics other than Math?... would you rather become known as greeneyedjoe?..Mad

KY Floyd's avatarKY Floyd

" I am not aware of any method of travel (legal and not dangerous to others) that has been specifically excluded."

Are you telling us that you're not aware that traveling by car and operating a car are different things? If that's an unfamiliar concept maybe somebody who specializes in civil rights or constitutional law would be best, but I expect that anyone with a decent grasp of basic legal concepts could explain the difference and why your right to travel is irrelevant to driving a car.

"everyone who sits behind the steering wheel of a car is NOT A "DRIVER" "

Of course you don't become a driver just by sitting behind the wheel. To be a driver you need to actually operate the car. Maybe your mechanic can explain the concept to you, along with what all the controls do.

Stat$talker's avatarStat$talker

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on Feb 19, 2021

" I am not aware of any method of travel (legal and not dangerous to others) that has been specifically excluded."

Are you telling us that you're not aware that traveling by car and operating a car are different things? If that's an unfamiliar concept maybe somebody who specializes in civil rights or constitutional law would be best, but I expect that anyone with a decent grasp of basic legal concepts could explain the difference and why your right to travel is irrelevant to driving a car.

"everyone who sits behind the steering wheel of a car is NOT A "DRIVER" "

Of course you don't become a driver just by sitting behind the wheel. To be a driver you need to actually operate the car. Maybe your mechanic can explain the concept to you, along with what all the controls do.

Of course you don't become a meaningful contributing poster just by sitting in front of a screen. To be a coherent commentor you need to actually operate a brain, which YOU obviously don't own... Maybe your psychiatrist can explain the concept to you, along with what all the properly functioning parts of one that you lack?, do...

cause it's impossible to have an imagination, and grasp Constitutional concepts, without a functional Cerebral Cortex....!!

Sounds like you've been dropped on yo head ...

Artist77's avatarArtist77

Looks like our " attorney " is mad because I pointed out some basic Consituational  law.  He still cannot grasp basic legal concepts and I have been right every time including the instance with the woman in New Hampshire who sued for anonymity for her lottery win. Most high schoolers have a better understanding of the law.

Artist77's avatarArtist77

Quote: Originally posted by Stat$talker on Feb 19, 2021

Of course you don't become a meaningful contributing poster just by sitting in front of a screen. To be a coherent commentor you need to actually operate a brain, which YOU obviously don't own... Maybe your psychiatrist can explain the concept to you, along with what all the properly functioning parts of one that you lack?, do...

cause it's impossible to have an imagination, and grasp Constitutional concepts, without a functional Cerebral Cortex....!!

Sounds like you've been dropped on yo head ...

What else has he got to do all day long????  Lol lol

Stat$talker's avatarStat$talker

Quote: Originally posted by Artist77 on Feb 19, 2021

Looks like our " attorney " is mad because I pointed out some basic Consituational  law.  He still cannot grasp basic legal concepts and I have been right every time including the instance with the woman in New Hampshire who sued for anonymity for her lottery win. Most high schoolers have a better understanding of the law.

I Agree!

Stat$talker's avatarStat$talker

Quote: Originally posted by Artist77 on Feb 19, 2021

What else has he got to do all day long????  Lol lol

LOL Apparently NOTHING..!!, except poke at members that try to impart knowledge and understanding to posted subjects here...

Some people don't like it when others express greater knowledge... they should try to learn from those that are able to reason in the cracks and crevices of logic..!

jjtheprince14

I hope they end up dead broke, they didn't deserve that hitter.  They only won because they bought tickets in a state that's never sold a losing ticket.

KY Floyd's avatarKY Floyd

"Looks like our " attorney " is mad because I pointed out some basic Consituational law."

I know it's confusing, but the constitutional right is to travel. I can see how people who don't understand that driving a car isn't the same as traveling by car might think that a right to travel means you have a right to drive, but traveling and driving are different things.

Are you aware of any exclusions saying you lose your right to travel if you're drunk? Or any exclusions that restrict yu right to travel based on speed? I ask because it should be obvious that the same "logic"  would mean that absent an exception for traveling if you're drunk or restrictions on the speeds at which you're allowed to travel laws against drunk driving or speeding would be unconstitutional.

I'm completely willing to accept that you and stat honestly believe that the constitution prohibits license requirements, laws against drunk driving, and laws against speeding. I just don't see how you can believe that if you're not unusually stupid.

Stack47

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on Feb 24, 2021

"Looks like our " attorney " is mad because I pointed out some basic Consituational law."

I know it's confusing, but the constitutional right is to travel. I can see how people who don't understand that driving a car isn't the same as traveling by car might think that a right to travel means you have a right to drive, but traveling and driving are different things.

Are you aware of any exclusions saying you lose your right to travel if you're drunk? Or any exclusions that restrict yu right to travel based on speed? I ask because it should be obvious that the same "logic"  would mean that absent an exception for traveling if you're drunk or restrictions on the speeds at which you're allowed to travel laws against drunk driving or speeding would be unconstitutional.

I'm completely willing to accept that you and stat honestly believe that the constitution prohibits license requirements, laws against drunk driving, and laws against speeding. I just don't see how you can believe that if you're not unusually stupid.

Not exactly sure what "Consituational" law means, but Constitutional law applies to traveling across state lines regardless whether it's in a car, bus, train, plane, walking, or riding a unicycle. It's why people don't need a passport crossing the Lincoln Tunnel, but need one to cross the Windsor Tunnel.

"believe that the constitution prohibits license requirements"

Not just them, 43 U.S. Senators don't understand the Constitution.

Stat$talker's avatarStat$talker

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on Feb 24, 2021

"Looks like our " attorney " is mad because I pointed out some basic Consituational law."

I know it's confusing, but the constitutional right is to travel. I can see how people who don't understand that driving a car isn't the same as traveling by car might think that a right to travel means you have a right to drive, but traveling and driving are different things.

Are you aware of any exclusions saying you lose your right to travel if you're drunk? Or any exclusions that restrict yu right to travel based on speed? I ask because it should be obvious that the same "logic"  would mean that absent an exception for traveling if you're drunk or restrictions on the speeds at which you're allowed to travel laws against drunk driving or speeding would be unconstitutional.

I'm completely willing to accept that you and stat honestly believe that the constitution prohibits license requirements, laws against drunk driving, and laws against speeding. I just don't see how you can believe that if you're not unusually stupid.

"(legal and not dangerous to others) that has been specifically excluded."

 

That's why she said the underlined...so, it agrees with what you're saying...the bottom line is .. ALL "Licenses" are issued granting permission to engage in "Commercial" business within the State's borders...So, since operating your Automobile coveys your right to travel , you don't need "Driver's" License to use it,.. as long as you obey common sense traffic laws.... just like owning a Gun is a Constitutional right... as long as you don't go around robbing and murdering..and a gun was specifically invented and designed to KILL,... but it's only lawful when done in "self-defense"...!! But STILL , you don't need a license to own a gun..!!

You're just being conversationally combative...

and those other 43 Senators mentioned?.. must be ReTrumplicans...not giving a chit about doing what's Constitutionally appropriate..!!

So, what's next?,.. a license to live in your house?, to walk down a public street?, to use the English language? to read?, to speak?.. If so , then this is the land of the licensed, not the FREE..!!

 

-Stat$talker 

KY Floyd's avatarKY Floyd

"That's why she said the underlined"

I know you're both confused, but that part has nothing to do with how our rights work.

"ALL "Licenses" are issued granting permission to engage in "Commercial" business within the State's borders"

If you want to know how things really work you'll need to stop "learning" the law from the sovereign citizen's playbook. That or give us th elink tot eh YouTube video where th cops break your window and drag your stupid ass out of the car.

"you don't need a license to own a gun..!!"

You should ask Google about that.

"and those other 43 Senators mentioned?"

I'd guess it's a reference to the impeachment vote, but without more context I'm not sure. What I am sure about is that there's a strong correlation between   bumper stickers and grandstanding about defending the Constitution, and a failure to actually understand the constitution.

Subscribe to this news story