4 ms·

> 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 tick

> 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 ago
The 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 ago
    There 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.
    - baddox 9y ago
      I understand, but that’s not the real story here, because her lottery allows anonymous trusts to accept winnings.
- ynniv 9y ago
  You would think the legislature would lend a kind ear to their next great donor.
- rabidrat 9y ago
  If she forgoes the winnings she should at least get the ticket price refunded.

wahern 9y ago

The 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 ago
  There 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.
  - baddox 9y ago
    I understand, but that’s not the real story here, because her lottery allows anonymous trusts to accept winnings.
ynniv 9y ago
You would think the legislature would lend a kind ear to their next great donor.
rabidrat 9y ago
If she forgoes the winnings she should at least get the ticket price refunded.