A New Jersey Superior Court Judge ruled that a supermarket employee who thought she was included in a ticket-buying pool even though she couldn't immediately pay is entitled to share in a $32.9 million Big Game lottery jackpot.
In a non-jury trial, Judge Mitchel Ostrer ruled Wednesday that Mary Marinelli, 49, of Dover Township is entitled to one-34th of the money won by employees of the Pathmark supermarket in Brick Township.
David Mazie, the woman's attorney, said her share will be about $1 million, including interest, before she is taxed.
"She's obviously very pleased," Mazie said. "This was 2½ years in the making. She should have been part of the original winners."
The employees pooled money to play in the Aug. 31, 2001, Big Game drawing, which offered a $65.8 million prize. There were two winning tickets, one held by the Pathmark employees and another by a Camden County couple.
The judge ruled that Marinelli was part of the employee pool, even though she had not paid the $10 admission. Marinelli, who had participated in previous pools, said she also agreed to be in this one but could not put in the $10 immediately because she did not have her pocketbook at her cash register post.
Her understanding was that somebody would cover her for the $10, Mazie said.
Marinelli remains a cashier at the supermarket, where she plans to continue working for another year and a half before retiring, Mazie said. He said there has been some tension between her and some of the approximately 25 lottery winners who remain employed at the supermarket.
"There have been comments," Mazie said. "She says she just has to ignore them."
Marc Stofman, the lawyer representing the other winners, said the judge's decision was wrong, and promised an appeal.
Two other store workers _ Kevin F. Doyle and Theresa J. Zercoe _ also claim they were part of the pool and have filed suit to get their share. That trial is scheduled to begin next week.
Because of the legal dispute, a portion of the jackpot was placed in escrow with the state lottery commission. Marinelli's payment is likely to come from that, Mazie said.
This is scary. My workplace also has a lottery pool but no written rules as far as I know. To know that anyone can just say that they were part of the pool is scarey. This lady even admitted that she did not give her required ten dollars so why did the judge award her the money?
Simply awesome she didn't even put her money up front and got a share of a pool. Good thing she was part of an agreement. Where I worked at if you didn't pay up front you didn't get a chance in the pool.
Quote:Originally posted by time2win on February 13, 2004
This is scary. My workplace also has a lottery pool but no written rules as far as I know. To know that anyone can just say that they were part of the pool is scarey. This lady even admitted that she did not give her required ten dollars so why did the judge award her the money?
If she and the other workers had an agreement that she would pay her $10 dollars at a later date and would still be included in the lottery then legally she is entitled to the winnings even though she had not yet put in her money. The employees entered into a legal oral contract by agreeing that she alos would be included. The legal system is strange but if two people enter an oral contract and it is agreed upon, that is almost the same as a written contract! People must be very careful what they agree to.
Chances are if the pool had not won anything she wouldn't have paid later for the losing tickets unless an agreement of such was made earlier. Obvisously the judge was one of those persons that think that lotteries winnings is free money that should be shared with everyone who knows the winners even if they don't share the cost of the winning tickets, hopefully when the case is appealed they will have a judge that understand that lottery winnings are not free if you have to buy the winning tickets.
When I ran a lottery pool at my worksite, I ALWAYS stipulated in the agreement all of the rules of the club. I made sure every member signed it and got a copy. There was a grace period of 1 drawing for all members, because as we all know, stuff happens. Get it in writing!
There is nothing scaring about the verdict for the fact that, she had paid her money when there was no win.Why can't she benefit from what she had been spending on all along, given the fact that she never refuse to pay at the time the money was to be collected.People should learn to take certain things innto consideration before dealing hard on others as the golden rules state"Do unto others,as you may have them do unto you.Once she have been paying,she should also have a share of the dough.
I agree, she should have a part of the winnings because she had been in the pool for all of the previous draws. She couldn't just leave her register to go and pay...DUH??!!**&%$#@
Because of this idiotic ruling, I wouldn't want to participate in a lottery pool anymore if jealous people who did not pay could stake a claim in the winnings after learning that their coworkers won. That's beyond ridiculous.
And who are these dopes that continue to work at a supermarket, in any capacity, after winning the lottery? That's also idiotic!
No way, no how...Hopefully the next judge will see that.
I run a lottery pool where I worked for years. Early on, I had people who dropped in and out of the pool all the time. That "cover me, I'll pay you back" got very expensive (for me). It doesn't work. I even had people (who never paid) trying to get into the little pots we won if they happen to be in any drawing prior to the drawing where we hit. Amazing....
A reverse of this case happened a few years ago in Youngstown,Ohio. A pool of workers won the jackpot shortly after a new worker joined and the older pool members thought the new member should only receive a partial share since he had not lost as much as they had during previous drawings but he went to court and the judge ruled that if winnings from previous drawings weren't used to buy the winning ticket then they had no effect on how the jackpot was distributed unless such an agreement was made before the tickets were purchased.
What kind of crap is that?????? If you don't have the mony, then borrow it. Who's to even say this woman really was going to get in the pool on that day. She could have said, "I'm tired of keep losing my money, I'm not going to play today".
I can't believe that judge awarded her any money. She was probably related to him.
This is scary. My workplace also has a lottery pool but no written rules as far as I know. To know that anyone can just say that they were part of the pool is scarey. This lady even admitted that she did not give her required ten dollars so why did the judge award her the money?
Simply awesome she didn't even put her money up front and got a share of a pool. Good thing she was part of an agreement. Where I worked at if you didn't pay up front you didn't get a chance in the pool.
Chances are if the pool had not won anything she wouldn't have paid later for the losing tickets unless an agreement of such was made earlier. Obvisously the judge was one of those persons that think that lotteries winnings is free money that should be shared with everyone who knows the winners even if they don't share the cost of the winning tickets, hopefully when the case is appealed they will have a judge that understand that lottery winnings are not free if you have to buy the winning tickets.
RJOh
When I ran a lottery pool at my worksite, I ALWAYS stipulated in the agreement all of the rules of the club. I made sure every member signed it and got a copy. There was a grace period of 1 drawing for all members, because as we all know, stuff happens. Get it in writing!
There is nothing scaring about the verdict for the fact that, she had paid her money when there was no win.Why can't she benefit from what she had been spending on all along, given the fact that she never refuse to pay at the time the money was to be collected.People should learn to take certain things innto consideration before dealing hard on others as the golden rules state"Do unto others,as you may have them do unto you.Once she have been paying,she should also have a share of the dough.
I agree, she should have a part of the winnings because she had been in the pool for all of the previous draws. She couldn't just leave her register to go and pay...DUH??!!**&%$#@
Because of this idiotic ruling, I wouldn't want to participate in a lottery pool anymore if jealous people who did not pay could stake a claim in the winnings after learning that their coworkers won. That's beyond ridiculous.
And who are these dopes that continue to work at a supermarket, in any capacity, after winning the lottery? That's also idiotic!
BabyJC is on fire to
No way, no how...Hopefully the next judge will see that.
I run a lottery pool where I worked for years. Early on, I had people who dropped in and out of the pool all the time. That "cover me, I'll pay you back" got very expensive (for me). It doesn't work. I even had people (who never paid) trying to get into the little pots we won if they happen to be in any drawing prior to the drawing where we hit. Amazing....
No little money, no big money!
Bryan :)
A reverse of this case happened a few years ago in Youngstown,Ohio. A pool of workers won the jackpot shortly after a new worker joined and the older pool members thought the new member should only receive a partial share since he had not lost as much as they had during previous drawings but he went to court and the judge ruled that if winnings from previous drawings weren't used to buy the winning ticket then they had no effect on how the jackpot was distributed unless such an agreement was made before the tickets were purchased.
RJOh
moral... stay out of the pool... too many sharks.
I usually stick to $1 dollar pools, and make sure my name is on it....
What kind of crap is that?????? If you don't have the mony, then borrow it. Who's to even say this woman really was going to get in the pool on that day. She could have said, "I'm tired of keep losing my money, I'm not going to play today".
I can't believe that judge awarded her any money. She was probably related to him.