The South African Sequence In December of 2020, the South African lottery
had a sequence of numbers that left its players calling shenanigans.
When the seemingly impossible series of numbers 5,6,7,8,9, and a Powerball of 10 were drawn,
the lottery ended up with twenty winners claiming a share of the jackpot.
Normally, when people play the lottery, they pick a number that means something to them,
like a birthday.
The real head-scratcher is why so many people chose such an improbable sequence.
This had lots of people turning to social media to air their feelings.
Some people remarked on how weird the whole situation was, while many saw it as proof
that the lottery is rigged.
As crazy as it may seem, the odds of getting these numbers is no different than any other
sequence, about 1 in 42 Million.
The public outcry sparked an investigation, but no evidence of foul play was ever found.
The real question is, what holds the greater odds—Winning the lottery in general or 20
South Africans picking the numbers 5,6,7,8,9, and 10?
Ali Jafaar The odds of winning the lottery even once
are astronomical.
For Ali Jafaar of Massachusetts, winning the lottery is almost an everyday occurrence.
Since 2014, the Jafaar family has been the winningest lottery players in Massachusetts,
netting $5.8 Million in 2019.
But, a new lottery policy in Mass landed the Jafaars, along with a few other frequent winners,
in courtrooms.
The policy allows the lottery to freeze payments for 90 days to anybody that's cashed 20 prizes
worth $1,000 or more within a year.
If their winnings are deemed factually and statistically improbable, the lottery can
step in.
The Jafaar family felt unjustly targeted and believed the state had no right to withhold
their winnings.
With that in mind, they sued the Massachusetts lottery for their prizes.
The Massachusetts lottery did anticipate the legal questions surrounding this policy and
if they could legally withhold prizes.
In their defense, lottery officials claim the policy is meant to prevent money laundering
schemes.
It also makes sure proper child support, taxes, and fees are paid to the state.
As for Jafaar and company, no legal action has been taken, and no proof of foul play
has been found.
Edward Hairston Co-workers are a huge part of every working
person's life.
They're the friends that make your long work-day better.
Sadly, for Edward Hairston of Ohio, his co-workers valued cash over their friendship.
The office lottery pool hit the $99 Million jackpot, but Hairston was left on the sidelines.
Hairston claimed that for 8 years, he put 15 dollars per month into a lottery pool with
his co-workers, hoping to win the huge cash prize.
However, a back injury kept him out of work and the lottery pool for 3 months.
His lawyers claimed it had been an unwritten rule of the office to pay for co-workers on
sick-leave.
Hairston even claimed that he covered some people out of his own pocket when they missed
the pool.
When he came to get his $2 Million share, he was denied.
Feeling betrayed and wronged, Hairston took his co-workers to court.
During this legal battle, the judge ordered his share of the money be set aside in case
he won.
However, the case never saw the inside of a courtroom and was settled privately.
Americo Lopes Americo Lopes is the story of another office
lottery pool gone wrong.
However, this time the office is a construction site in New Jersey.
Lopes and his co-workers had worked together for years.
They trusted each other and pitched in $2 every week to play the lottery.
It was Lopes's job to collect the money and purchase the ticket.
In November of 2009, they hit their winning numbers.
The only problem?
No one knew except Lopes.
Instead of telling his friends, he kept the money for himself.
Lopes came into work after winning the money and said he needed foot surgery, which would
keep him out of work until Spring.
His friends never considered that he was running away with their winnings and continued their
friendship.
But word spread about his winnings, and after some online digging, the other lottery pool
members found out he'd won big.
His former friends immediately filed suit, but Americo's lawyer argued that no written
proof existed that the winning ticket was the same one he bought with the pool money.
Lopes alleged that he would often buy multiple tickets on top of the one he shared with his
co-workers.
After all, was said and done, it was ruled that Mr. Lopes must share the winnings equally
with his co-workers.
We're beginning to think these lottery pools are a bad idea.
Tonda Lynn, the Waffle House Waitress
There were many regulars at the Waffle House in Grand Bay, Alabama but none quite as interesting
as Edward Seward.
Edward came to the restaurant all the time and regularly tipped the employees with lottery
slips in envelopes.
These slips came with two conditions—the winner had to share their winnings with all
of their co-workers, and they'd buy Edward a brand new pick-up truck.
Sounds like a reasonable deal, right?
This went on for a while, but in March of 1999, one of the tickets hit the 10 million
dollar prize.
The winning employee was Tonda Lynn, but she refused to share the winnings.
For breaking their verbal contract, Edward and her co-workers sued her.
But Alabama law states that contracts related to gambling, which is mostly illegal in Alabama,
were not enforceable.
Legally, Tonda was allowed to keep all the money.
But her legal woes didn't stop there.
The IRS later gave Tonya a bill for almost $800,000 after trying to pull some tax shenanigans
of her own.
Tonya started an S corporation called 9 Mill, Inc to funnel her money through.
In short, an S corporation is sometimes called a Small Business Corporation, which allows
income to be passed through their shareholders.
Tonya’s family members were the shareholders, and Tonya was the majority stockholder.
The IRS saw through the scheme after Tonya gave her family members a little over $2 Million
of her winnings.
She claimed they had a verbal agreement to take care of one another if they ever won
the lottery, and that the money was not a taxable gift.
The IRS didn't buy it.
And yes, she lost for the same reason she won her previous case.
Robert Martel To most people, a losing lottery ticket belongs
in the garbage.
For Robert Martel, his losing lottery ticket is worth 400 ounces of gold or $750,000—sort
of.
Martel, a Massachusetts man, bought a 20 dollar scratch-off ticket in New Hampshire.
He scratched the ticket and, wouldn't you know it, he lost.
However, the ticket featured a bonus section to scratch.
If you revealed a $200 symbol, you won.
But Martel found a gold bar symbol instead.
He excitedly went up to the counter to have it scanned but was told it was a losing card.
Not being very happy with this result, he sent in a prize form to the New Hampshire
lottery commission but never heard back.
Feeling cheated, he took the commission to court, hoping to get either a gold bar or
its equivalent in cash which was $750,000.
Martel chose to represent himself in court, but a judge threw the case out in 2021 after
Martel failed to refile the proper paperwork.
Perhaps Martel does have a chance against the New Hampshire lottery, but he should probably
go in with a lawyer next time.
Reese Witherspoon's Dress Lottery Now we know this is not an official lottery,
but it's definitely a cautionary tale on how not to run a lottery for a giveaway.
Draper James, Reese Witherspoon's fashion company, tweeted the following in April of
2020:
"Dear Teachers: We want to say thank you.
During quarantine, we see you working harder than ever to educate our children.
To show our gratitude, Draper James would like to give teachers a free dress.
To apply, complete the form at the link in bio before this Sunday, April 5th, 11:59 PM
ET.
(Offer valid while supplies last – winners will be notified on Tuesday, April 7th)."
Teachers all over the country went nuts, and over a million of them applied for the giveaway.
It was so popular that The Today Show and Good Morning America did entire segments on
it.
But Witherspoon only had 250 dresses to give away.
When participants found out, they sued Draper James for breach of contract.
Witherspoon's lawyers argue that the lawsuit "attempts to avoid common sense" in the belief
that a company could reasonably give out so much product for free.
They also argued that the wording of the original post was obvious in offering an opportunity
to get a dress, not a guarantee.
The words' while supplies last' and 'winners' should have been enough.
The Dirty Dozen In some stories, nobody but the people involved
know the whole truth.
That was the case for The Dirty Dozen, 12 Chicago co-workers who went from modest bakers
to multi-millionaires overnight.
When they collected the $118 Million prize, their lawyer, Michael Haugh, told them that
they had to put a name on the form.
They came up with the Dirty Dozens.
But silly names aside, Haugh knew that he was about to have a lottery lawsuit on his
hands.
Once word got out about the Dirty Dozen, 11 other employees claimed they were in the pool.
When a dispute occurs over prize money, Illinois law states that all funds must be frozen until
the dispute is settled.
One co-worker, let's call him the 13th man, said he came to work after hearing they had
won only to be told that he wasn't part of the Dirty Dozen.
Another lawsuit claimed they had all purchased tickets as a group and deserved part of the
winnings.
Those involved finally settled the dispute in 2014.
Each member of the Dirty Dozen got 6 million dollars, and the other 11 people split a little
over 13 million.
Linza Ford In 2012, a mother-daughter duo entered into
a heated legal dispute over who was the rightful owner of a $1 Million jackpot.
Barbra Quiles, the mother, claims she authorized her daughter, Linza Ford, to cash the Million-dollar
ticket.
Linza signed the back and even posed for a picture with the big million-dollar check.
Because she signed it, Linza would receive $50,000 per year for the next 20 years deposited
right into her bank account.
Linza claims she gave her mother access to the account, believing she'd use the money
to take care of her little sister and pay off some debt.
In 2014, Linza discovered her mother used the money for cosmetic surgery instead, so
she locked her out of the account.
Barbara didn't take this lying down and sued her daughter a month later, claiming that
the money was actually hers.
A Brooklyn supreme court justice ordered the account to be frozen until the case was settled.
After some back and forth, the mother and daughter eventually reached an undisclosed
agreement behind the scenes.