Ex-girlfriend wants a piece of $6 million Lotto 6/49 win | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Ex-girlfriend wants a piece of $6 million Lotto 6/49 win

3 mil or 6 mil, there's a good chance this brain trust is going to be broke again inside a few years, so he might as well just give up the half to her (instead of spending half of his 3mil he's going to end up with anyways on lawyers fees...only to end up losing anyways) and be done with it.

With any luck someone with some financial sensibilities (hopefully family) will get to him in time to help him invest it, lock in the majority of the principal, and live the rest of his life quite comfortably on the interest. Even at 3% you're talking a nearly $100,000/year income for the rest of his life.
 
He might have gotten away with it if be did as Java said. Or he could have just enjoyed splurging with the now ex. ...he'll blow it and be in a crappy apt in a few years. Doesn't sound like he good at planning things financially.
 
Common law is not so simple...
If they were buying tickets together.. she gets her share.
If he was buying tickets on his own the whole time... or just popped in on a whim and bought one without her being involved... Could all be his.
 
raginduck said:
Common law is not so simple...
If they were buying tickets together.. she gets her share.
If he was buying tickets on his own the whole time... or just popped in on a whim and bought one without her being involved... Could all be his.
Click to expand...
This.
Lightcycle said:
He would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids!
Click to expand...
Lolz

sent from my Purple LGG4 on the GTAM app
 
raginduck said:
Common law is not so simple...
If they were buying tickets together.. she gets her share.
If he was buying tickets on his own the whole time... or just popped in on a whim and bought one without her being involved... Could all be his.
Click to expand...

Hard to prove buying habits...would be a he said, she said. Common-law is easier to prove.
 
Riceburner said:
Hard to prove buying habits...would be a he said, she said. Common-law is easier to prove.
Click to expand...

Prove common law?

This case will be about he said/she said and buying habits, if they was buying habits.
It's not a simple as "we lived together for .... long"
 
Last edited:
Would be WAY cheaper to just give her half now. Because his half of 6 mil will be way bigger before legal bills.

I'd much rather have 3mil making 5% than 6 mil losing 30%.....

if your proposed idea to disappear doesnt go 100%, then you get all the related costs and possibly fraud charges . I'd take door #1.
 
You can see how easily these things can go south.
At this point he probably thinks she deserves none, and she thinks she deserves more than half for the aggravation.
 
d140aed08215f70fbb4e550cafb80bed.png
 
raginduck said:
Prove common law?

This case will be about he said/she said and buying habits, if they was buying habits.
It's not a simple as "we lived together for .... long"
Click to expand...

Easy to prove. Mailing/lic. addresses, # of bedrooms, witnesses that they were a couple, etc. If she wasn't worth sticking with, I would't want to give her any either, but he's got a hard fight. I don't believe someone deserves half of everything just because they were together, but that's how the law is at this point. Though, if it cost him anything less than $3M to win, he's ahead. The courts will probably decide.
 
Riceburner said:
Easy to prove. Mailing/lic. addresses, # of bedrooms, witnesses that they were a couple, etc. If she wasn't worth sticking with, I would't want to give her any either, but he's got a hard fight. I don't believe someone deserves half of everything just because they were together, but that's how the law is at this point. Though, if it cost him anything less than $3M to win, he's ahead. The courts will probably decide.
Click to expand...

Common law marriage is not that cut and dry...
It is very possible that they were common law married and she still ends up getting nothing of the winnings. Proving they were common law married is probably very easy.. but is only a small part of the argument.
 
Riceburner said:
Easy to prove. Mailing/lic. addresses, # of bedrooms, witnesses that they were a couple, etc. If she wasn't worth sticking with, I would't want to give her any either, but he's got a hard fight. I don't believe someone deserves half of everything just because they were together, but that's how the law is at this point. Though, if it cost him anything less than $3M to win, he's ahead. The courts will probably decide.
Click to expand...

See, the whole "half of everything I own" argument, was born from the fact that when a couple separates, the wife (or partner who earns less) has become accustomed to a certain lifestyle. She should probably be entitled to half of the stuff that they *currently* shared (right before the breakup/before the ticket), but now that dude wants out, she shouldn't be entitled to anything, IMO.

And I hope the defense lawyer uses this as a defense. She should have no claim to that ticket, OR it's winnings.

There's two lessons here: don't commit to doing anything with anyone you're not 100% fond of AND don't play the GD lottery.
 
The breakup happened after the purchase of the ticket. She will get half. Guy is an idiot. Take the 3 million and run if he wants.

Kri$han said:
See, the whole "half of everything I own" argument, was born from the fact that when a couple separates, the wife (or partner who earns less) has become accustomed to a certain lifestyle. She should probably be entitled to half of the stuff that they *currently* shared (right before the breakup/before the ticket), but now that dude wants out, she shouldn't be entitled to anything, IMO.

And I hope the defense lawyer uses this as a defense. She should have no claim to that ticket, OR it's winnings.

There's two lessons here: don't commit to doing anything with anyone you're not 100% fond of AND don't play the GD lottery.
Click to expand...
 
Common law marriage in Ontario is 3 years, without kids... They lived together for just over 2 years, no kids between them. She has from a previous.... So, might not be common law married.
Even if... Common law marriage and property rights are not always as simple as... 'each gets half'

Her claim is not just about them living together.. It is also about, and probably more so, their verbal agreements to share any lottery winnings.
 
For the record... I'm not arguing in support of the guy. I think it's a real ********* thing to do.. and hope she does get half.
 
You are correct. I did not see the time frame. Since they did not have a child together and lived together under 3 years there is probably no common law marriage. Not nearly as cut and dried as I had thought.

raginduck said:
Common law marriage in Ontario is 3 years, without kids... They lived together for just over 2 years, no kids between them. She has from a previous.... So, might not be common law married.
Even if... Common law marriage and property rights are not always as simple as... 'each gets half'

Her claim is not just about them living together.. It is also about, and probably more so, their verbal agreements to share any lottery winnings.
Click to expand...
 
There is a reason why the name(s) of the winners are published. You can try and hide it but, your partner/souse/ex will find out. Even if you blow it, if you won it during your time together and even during your separation, you are SOL in most cases.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
nakkers said:
There is a reason why the name(s) of the winners are published. You can try and hide it but, your partner/souse/ex will find out. Even if you blow it, if you won it during your time together and even during your separation, you are SOL in most cases.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

that is certainly part of the reason
another is pure marketing
and also if you recall awhile back
scandal where convenience store owners were stealing winning tickets
purchasers came in to have them checked
store owner says sorry, not sorry
then claim the prize
OLG had a lot of work to do to bring transparency to the process

guy should settle with her, take his 3
before the lawyers turn 6 into 4

this will fall under family law
nothing happens fast
will take years to get in front of a judge
system's priority is kids
not doosh's with lottery tickets
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom