5 ms·
If you don't happen to read the article and think to mention the anonymous trust way of accepting the winnings. She can't do that either. "The state allows peo
by sosuke 9y ago
If you don't happen to read the article and think to mention the anonymous trust way of accepting the winnings. She can't do that either.
"The state allows people to form an anonymous trust, NewHampshire.com reported, but it’s a moot point for the woman — she signed her name on the back of the ticket shortly after winning, and altering the signature would nullify the ticket."
Oh and an excellent tidbit out of the story is that the attorney representing her actually blogged about the winner having been in NH and how the winner should not sign the back of the ticket. Apparently the ticket winner is now using that attorney to represent her in the courts. https://www.shaheengordon.com/New-Hampshire-Legal-Blog/2018/January/Attorney-William-Shaheen-Has-Advice-for-New-Powe.aspx https://www.shaheengordon.com/New-Hampshire-Legal-Blog/2018/...
- giarc 9y agoSo moral of the story is to never sign your ticket. Looks like some lucky person was smart enough to do that. "In 2016, the last winner of the Powerball followed that advice. The $487 million prize claimed through the Robin Egg 2016 Nominee Trust, which was created by Shaheen, and he serves as its trustee."
- donald123 9y agoNot exactly, it is advised by the lottery office to immediately sign your ticket. Otherwise it may create a lot of unnecessary troubles, like your ticket is lost, robbed, or some friend claims you had verbal agreement on splitting the rewards, etc.
- giarc 9y agoOn the extremely rare chance that you do win, avoiding the troubles of a newly minted public millionaire, not signing it seems like a good trade off.
- donald123 9y agoLosing the ticket is NOT extremely rare chance at all. Avoiding troubles going public, versus losing all of the million dollars rewards, it's obvious what people would choose.
- throw7 9y agoI think the moral is... do not talk/sign/call/anything, walk, no run, to a good lawyer well versed in the area of: "I've just won the lottery, please help."
- joezydeco 9y agoA lot of people are cheated out of their winning each year by sales clerks that check the ticket, tell the buyer "nope, it's a loser", then pull the ticket out of the trash once the buyer has left. Signing the back upon purchase is a strong defense against this fraud. So it's not as black-and-white as it seems.
- giarc 9y agoI can only talk about Canada, but in both Ontario and western Canada they scan your ticket and an audible sound is made if you are a winner (or loser). For both winners and non-winners, a receipt prints out and the clerk gives you both. Additionally there is a self scan kiosk where you can check your ticket. And there's always publicly listed winning numbers.
- giarc 9y agoHowever, I will add that often a clerk won't scan your ticket if it's not signed. Therefore, if you want to check your numbers without signing the ticket, your options are self scan, their official app, online numbers, newspapers etc. Lots of options.
- newbuser 9y agoNo idea how the system works, but if the clerk is able to disable the scanner and manually press a hidden button that plays the audio of the losing sound, seems like a pretty easy system to break.
- giarc 9y agoAnd print out an official lotto receipt on their official paper.... come on.
- greggarious 9y ago> So moral of the story is to never sign your ticket. But doesn't this mean if someone can assault you and steal the ticket they can claim it themselves? Sounds like both have risks :/
- wyldfire 9y ago> She can't do that either. But, why? Because she accidentally signed the ticket before realizing that it invalidated that option? She holds the winning ticket, just let her redact her signature from it legitimately and claim her winnings.
- wahern 9y agoThe question is whether the law establishing the lottery permits that, and if so what clear limits the court can put into place so that the agency operating the lottery doesn't have to contend with too many complex scenarios that could ultimately result. Money attracts litigation, especially when the rules aren't crystal clear. It sucks for this woman, but technically she could always forgo the winnings altogether. Nobody is forcing her to take the money, or to keep it. She wants to have her cake and eat it too. What's she's asking is reasonable on its face, but there are larger considerations at play. The legislature is still free to address this woman's concerns directly, as well as for future winners. Ideally that's what would really happen. Maybe she should pledge some donations to her friendly neighborhood representatives.
- baddox 9y ago> The question is whether the law establishing the lottery permits that But that’s shouldn’t be the question. The question should be whether that law is extremely dumb (obviously it is), and whether it threatens to place undeserved stress on an individual going through a major life event (it does).
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- gameshot911 9y agoThere are good reasons for forcing winners to be publicly named. One of which is that it helps the integrity of the game - harder for the lottery organizer to just not pay out, or to cheat and pay it to their lackeys every time.