Woman who threw out $1 million dollar lottery ticket is still entitled to the prize

SciphonicStranger

Objects may be closer than they appear
I'd sue the dude who programmed that ticket scanner. The legal battle will probably eat up most of the million dollar prize... :facepalm:

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

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.
 

Rac80

The Belle of the Ball
yeah the judge is full of baloney! The supreme court has already ruled that once you throw something out you no longer have a claim to it (which is why law enforcement can take your trash and go through it without a warrent!:P) so a higher court judge will straighten this out. :P
 
S

Stonelesscutter

Guest
Obviously the woman who threw away the ticket has no right to claim the prize. On top of that the other woman has no right to claim the prize either. It's illegal to take ownership of trash. Once it's been thrown away it basically belongs to the state.
 

shavedape

Well Known GateFan
Obviously the woman who threw away the ticket has no right to claim the prize. On top of that the other woman has no right to claim the prize either. It's illegal to take ownership of trash. Once it's been thrown away it basically belongs to the state.

And you're our resident statist, hmm...
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
Obviously the woman who threw away the ticket has no right to claim the prize. On top of that the other woman has no right to claim the prize either. It's illegal to take ownership of trash. Once it's been thrown away it basically belongs to the state.

Not in the US! If that were true, then the rapidly growing private recycling businesses would not be thriving. The state could sue them out of existence. Antique stores, even single purpose "found art" galleries on Melrose Avenue would be in trouble. I want to know why the original woman threw hers away. But even more, how did the woman who threw it away find out it was a winner? If she wrote it down in a log or kept records of it, then I think this woman should get her winnings. If not, then finders keepers. :)
 

SciphonicStranger

Objects may be closer than they appear
Not in the US! If that were true, then the rapidly growing private recycling businesses would not be thriving. The state could sue them out of existence. Antique stores, even single purpose "found art" galleries on Melrose Avenue would be in trouble. I want to know why the original woman threw hers away. But even more, how did the woman who threw it away find out it was a winner? If she wrote it down in a log or kept records of it, then I think this woman should get her winnings. If not, then finders keepers. :)

Unless she has a photocopy and the receipt, I would vote no on that one and I think the judge should have too. I'm more interested in the part about the scanner coming back with "Sorry. Not a winner" on a winning ticket. A barcode is either read or not read as far as I knew.
 

Rac80

The Belle of the Ball
SHE tossed it out...it was no longer "hers"...simple as that. it will be overturned on appeal. then she will sue the state lottery and the company that made the scanners and probably get MORE than the $1 mil the ticket was worth! :P
 

shavedape

Well Known GateFan
SHE tossed it out...it was no longer "hers"...simple as that. it will be overturned on appeal. then she will sue the state lottery and the company that made the scanners and probably get MORE than the $1 mil the ticket was worth! :P

I'm not a lawyer but I slept with one once when I was much, much younger, so my legal spider sense says that this chick will have a hell of a time proving the lottery scanner messed up. In fact, she will have a hell of a time proving that she even scanned the ticket in the first place. Unless she can get the security tape showing her scanning the ticket and throwing it away she's pretty much SOL as they say. Her "win" right now is really no win at all if you factor in the money and time and proof she will need to invest in this whole charade.
 

SciphonicStranger

Objects may be closer than they appear
I slept with a doctor once - anyone need open heart surgery? :D
 

shavedape

Well Known GateFan
I slept with a doctor once - anyone need open heart surgery? :D

I, too, slept with a doctor once, a doctor of psychology (no, I wasn't being treated believe it or not). The sex was just "meh" compared to the lawyer. I don't know why as I can't stand lawyers...or doctors for that matter, go figure. At any rate, the important point is that I got laid by a lawyer and it was good -- very very good. Let's not lose sight of what's important in this thread, m'kay. ;)
 

Rac80

The Belle of the Ball
the buyer is going to lose on appeal...precedent is with the dumpster-diver (or trash picker, or whatever you wish to call her) US supreme court: California vs Greenwood 1988. the trash is essentially public domain...free for the pickings!


full disclosure: I sleep regularly with a Doctor (of Organic Chemistry)- has enjoyed it for 30+ years, but I know very little about organic chemistry! :P
 

SciphonicStranger

Objects may be closer than they appear
I, too, slept with a doctor once, a doctor of psychology (no, I wasn't being treated believe it or not). The sex was just "meh" compared to the lawyer. I don't know why as I can't stand lawyers...or doctors for that matter, go figure. At any rate, the important point is that I got laid by a lawyer and it was good -- very very good. Let's not lose sight of what's important in this thread, m'kay. ;)

Good point. Ya' know, if these women had been sleeping with doctors or lawyers regularly they probably wouldn't be fighting over a lottery ticket from a garbage can. :D
 

shavedape

Well Known GateFan
Good point. Ya' know, if these women had been sleeping with a doctors or lawyers regularly they probably wouldn't be fighting over a lottery ticket from a garbage can. :D

:thoranime12::rotflmao::icon_lol::laughing::laughing::rotflmao::icon_lol::thoranime12: True!
 
S

Stonelesscutter

Guest
Unless she has a photocopy and the receipt, I would vote no on that one and I think the judge should have too. I'm more interested in the part about the scanner coming back with "Sorry. Not a winner" on a winning ticket. A barcode is either read or not read as far as I knew.

The ticket or scanner could have been dirty leading to a faulty read.
 

Bluce Ree

Tech Admin / Council Member
The ticket or scanner could have been dirty leading to a faulty read.

For that to happen, there would need be at least two major coincidences. First, the check digit would have to correspond to the rest of the incorrectly interpreted barcode, which confirms the serial number is valid, then the entire serial number would have to match an existing one in the lottery's database. The dirt would need to be strategically placed to forge a barcode.
 

shavedape

Well Known GateFan
For that to happen, there would need be at least two major coincidences. First, the check digit would have to correspond to the rest of the incorrectly interpreted barcode, which confirms the serial number is valid, then the entire serial number would have to match an existing one in the lottery's database. The dirt would need to be strategically placed to forge a barcode.

Exactly. This woman will have a hell of a time proving anything about the scanner. She would have to prove A.) that she really scanned the ticket in the first place and, more importantly, B.) that this particular scanner was faulty and also C.) that these scanners, in general, have a proven history of error readings. It's a monumental hill to climb and frankly I'm shocked that there was a sitting judge dumb enough to rule in her favor to begin with. If the appeals process doesn't reverse this ruling I will be even more shocked.
 

SciphonicStranger

Objects may be closer than they appear
For that to happen, there would need be at least two major coincidences. First, the check digit would have to correspond to the rest of the incorrectly interpreted barcode, which confirms the serial number is valid, then the entire serial number would have to match an existing one in the lottery's database. The dirt would need to be strategically placed to forge a barcode.

I'd say the chances of that happening are about the same as winning a $1 million lottery. :P
 
Top