Is the judge right? Woman who lost Ark. lotto ticket entitled to $1M

[mfcorey1]

SEARCY, Ark. (AP) — An Arkansas woman who cashed a $1 million lottery ticket may have to give up the winnings to a woman who threw away the ticket after she bought it, according to a judge's ruling Tuesday.

The judge decided that Sharon Duncan was entitled to the prize money, not Sharon Jones, who claimed the prize money after she took the ticket from a trash can of discarded lottery tickets at a convenience store in Beebe, a city about 40 miles northeast of Little Rock.

Jones' attorney, James Simpson, said he plans to appeal. Jones had testified that she already spent some of the money on a new truck and cash gifts to her children.

Simpson noted that Duncan testified she threw away the ticket after the read-out on a ticket scanner said, "Sorry. Not a winner." The attorney argued that people shouldn't be allowed to throw items away and then say, "'ooh, I want to un-abandon it.'"

"We'd have garage-sale law all over the place," he said. "It became trash when someone threw it away."

White County judge Thomas Hughes, however, said Jones never met the burden of proof that Duncan abandoned her right to claim $1 million.

"The $1 million was never found money," Hughes said.

Earlier Tuesday, Jones testified that she gathered a handful of discarded tickets from the trash can — as she had done many times before — and said there was no sign alerting customers not to take tickets.

http://news.yahoo.com/woman-lost-ark-lotto-ticket-entitled-1m-001711454.html

[ProdigalJunkMail]

1. the only people, if anyone, who should be remotely liable for this

is the lottery company or the retailer whose scanner said that the ticket was a loser. this judge needs to be removed from the bench...

sP

[baldguy]

2. The title of ownership for the ticket belongs to the person who bought it, not the person who has it

[NYC Liberal]

3. Not if she threw it away it doesn't.

She abandoned it when it did so.

[jberryhill]

12. Note who brought the original action

The lead plaintiff is the store, which had not thrown out the ticket.

[4lbs]

6. How could ownership have been established?

She didn't sign her ticket, which is stupid. Every lotto ticket I've ever purchased, I've signed my name on the back of all of them. Yes, it's a little time consuming, but think of this exact scenario of why an extra 10 seconds literally can pay off in the end.

In lieu of this there is another way to possibly establish ownership.

Now, each lotto ticket has a bar code and encoding that signifies that it was created by lotto machine #xxxxx at a certain date and time. They can theoretically examine security camera footage and check on that day and time the identity of the purchaser.

However what if the location doesn't have a security camera, or have footage of the lottery purchase? What then?

That seems to be the case here. There was no signing of the ticket. And any security camera footage doesn't match up with the plaintiff's claim.

Thus, couldn't anybody who purchased a lotto ticket from that location on the same day also claim it was theirs?

Now, one could easily argue that the lotto commission is partly at fault for producing a machine that falsely read "sorry not a winner".

If anything, both women should be given $1 million. The ticket-holder and the plaintiff.

[jberryhill]

7. In most places, it is a bearer document

Like cash itself, there is no "title" to it.

[greytdemocrat]

10. Exactly.

If you have it in your hands, the money is yours. If you threw the ticket away, too bad.

[avebury]

8. But how do you really know that the lady claiming to

have thrown away the ticket is the original owner of the ticket? Anybody can claim to have been the person to have thrown away the ticket but how do prove original ownership beyond any reasonable doubt?

I can't believe that anyone would be dumb enough to rely on a scanner. If I did not see the winning number announced on the TV I would be looking it up on the internet.

[jberryhill]

11. The original action was brought by the store, not the other woman

[liberal N proud]

4. I lost one too

How do you prove she ever had one?

[dballance]

5. Hell No The Judge is Wrong

First, the article says the store "lottery records and store security video didn't synch up to the precise timing of the purchase." How imprecise was that? Of course I don't expect a convenience store to be trying to sync up the security system with the lottery system or even their own POS down to the second. But how far apart was the time? Seconds, minutes, more? How many other people bought tickets in that time gap? Why don't they all come forward too?

So how do you prove Duncan ever had title in the first place?

Second I can't believe that throwing something in the trash doesn't relinquish one's title to it. I bet if I went to Lexus-Nexis even I could find case law that supports my view. I also believe there have been cases where police went through people's trash to obtain evidence and the defendants tried to get it thrown out because whatever it was was in the trash and had obviously been given up by the previous owner.

BTW, the article doesn't explain how Duncan even knew to file suit. Anyone here know how she knew? I think there may have been something hinky going on between the store manager and her.

[jberryhill]

13. "I can't believe that throwing something in the trash doesn't relinquish one's title to it"

Here's the problem, and you have to read the article closely to get this.

The original plaintiff in the action was the store.

The store had not thrown out the ticket.

The ticket was in a receptacle inside the store.

If the original purchaser tossed it into the "discarded tickets" bin at the store, and inside the store, the ticket at that point belonged to the store.

The store had not thrown it out, and thus had not abandoned it. It was in their possession on their premises.

Procedurally, what happened is that the store joined, as a co-plaintiff, the woman who claimed to originally own the ticket. That bolstered their case somewhat, but the operative issue was whether the woman who cashed the ticket was correct in taking it from the discard receptacle - INSIDE THE STORE - and then cashing it and claiming the prize.

What she should have done is to take the ticket elsewhere to claim the prize.

[dballance]

14. Interesting but subtle difference

That does make it a bit more questionable. So I have same question about how anyone knew to sue.

[jberryhill]

16. Sounds like a chain reaction

The store tried to thread a needle by saying the first lady abandoned it, but the store had not yet abandoned it, while it sat in the same receptacle.

Maybe the first customer was encouraged to get in by the store as a backstop, but I'd like to know more of the procedural details.

[magical thyme]

9. everybody in that store that day could claim it was their ticket

I'm surprised they didn't.

[bluestate10]

15. Higher courts will overturn the judge.

Lottery tickets are like bearer bonds, they belong to the holder unless a claimant can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the object was taken from them by deception and/or force. The burden of proof should be on the woman claiming to have thrown away the winning ticket, not the other way around.

[joeybee12]

17. I agree...I'm actually appalled the way this judge ruled...

Sucks for the woman who bought it, but she bloew it...her case is against the maker of the scanner or the store.

[obamanut2012]

18. I was really surprised by this verdict

[crazylikafox]

19. Pretty tricky for store: Their ticket scanner says "Sorry, not a winner", ......

then has a container next to it saying essentially, "deposit your loosing tickets here".

Could make a lot of money that way going thru the discarded tickets every night.

[TrogL]

21. That's not their only scam

If you give them your ticket to scan, by slight of hand they'll exchange it for one under the couintetr that's a prove non-winner, then cash yours in later.

[TrogL]

20. AH HA!!!! I've been saying all along you can't trust those scanners.

Now I've got proof!

[Ruby the Liberal]

22. Possession is 9/10 of the law.

I hope the court finds in favor of the one who had the responsibility not to throw the ticket out and then sue someone else over that decision.