Payout is anonymous, but winner's identity may be revealed later, pending court case
A woman who sued the New Hampshire state lottery commission asking it to allow her to collect the $559.7 million prize she had won without making her name public collected her winnings on Wednesday, lottery officials said, and kept her privacy for now.
The woman won the fifth-largest jackpot in the history of the multi-state Powerball lottery drawing in early January but began her legal odyssey when she signed her winning ticket with her own name, which would make her identity a matter of public record.
(See NH Powerball lottery winner sues for anonymity, Lottery Post, Feb. 2, 2018.)
The winner's attorney, William Shaheen, said in a statement he was collecting the prize in the name of the Good Karma Family 2018 Nominee Trust, which the winner established to serve as a legal mechanism to accept the money. Her award was a one-time payment that came to $264 million after taxes.
In court papers, Shaheen, a former federal prosecutor who is married to New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen, had asked a judge to allow the winner to amend her ticket to show only the name of a trust. He argued that had the winner created the trust before signing the ticket, she could have collected her winnings without making her identity public.
"We recognize the tremendous interest this prize has generated but hope you appreciate our client's desire to maintain a sense of normalcy by keeping her name confidential," Shaheen said in a statement.
He said the winner immediately donated $250,000 of her winnings to four New Hampshire charities aimed at improving girls' lives and fighting hunger.
A state court judge is still determining whether to allow the winner to keep her name out of the public record. The state lottery commission last month agreed to pay out the prize while the court case continued.
Great news. Maybe this will lead to at least having a winner remain anonymous for a period of time, like 6 months, and start a precedent.
I agree Artist. Even if a short period of time it gives a person time to move.
I'm sure the usual LP suspects are extremely disappointed.
"the winner immediately donated $250,000 of her $264 million after tax winnings to four New Hampshire charities"
That comes to less than 0.1%. Why did she even bother?
I hope she wins her case and it sets a precedent for other states to enact similar privacy laws to protect winners.
that's just plain cheap wow millionaire only donated 250,000 to 4 charities u can't take it with u
I believe that "the sanctity of the home" played a major part in the judge's decision. I agree with all the posters who agree with this decision. One more step closer to anonymity in another State.
"I believe that "the sanctity of the home" played a major part in the judge's decision."
What decision do you think the judge made?
"He said the winner immediately donated $250,000 of her $264 million after tax winnings"
Fixed that for you. Just because her lawyer says something doesn't make it true. He's been trying to use BS instead of the law to win the case since they came up with the name of the trust.
"That comes to less than 0.1%. Why did she even bother?"
How much of her winnings do you think she should donate in the very first week that she's rich?
According to a YouTube video, the Court has not made the final decision. She will appeal if she loses.
When I win I will ask everyone to stop spending my money. You should get elected if you want to spend other people's money.
My fingers are crossed 4 her ...... ought to be most interesting
at minimal they ought to allow a person/s at least 6 months
Lol. A perfect response.
For the actual allegedly real attorneys out there, one can find precedent or distinguish any existing law or rule in existance. That is how a body of case law develops. It seems like most of the people who are not attorneys, have a better grasp of how case law develops.
She just got the money yesterday and folks are upset because she hasn't given enough (for them) of it away. smh
Congratulations to her. Hope she can keep her privacy.
.1% donation. if that amount - or any amount - held sway in the Judge's decision I would be shocked.
However, the longer she gets "allowed" to remain anonymous is a great potential precedent for future winners. I'm all for having her have her name put on display after she finally loses all her appeals; thus finally stopping the clock for her as "test case" in what could be future reasonable expectation of time-frames for anonymity. 3 months after collecting? 6 months after collecting?
While personal opinions vary, her giving could be as a start to a larger amount for those particular groups. Maybe she is doing some research with her legal team on other avenues of giving ? All kinds of unknowns as to why and how much, BUT.. she is giving and she is giving a heck of a lot more than i can at this time.
Thanks madam lottery winner... keep up your fight for privacy....
Taking this case as a possible warning, maybe you (general you) should come up with a good name for a trust in case you win a big prize. I am thinking of weird type names, (bilbo & frodo trust, smaug vs dwarves trust, the laurelindorian trust, etc) so that if hubby and I win, we have a name set to sign.
” Personal opinions vary”- True. My post mentioned $5-10 mil as a start, why? Because when you as a jackpot winner “ gives later” who pays attention? Who out there is going to say “ Oh my.. did you know that so and so gave another $10 mil to charity.” Who would know- In a word, NO ONE! Given that this winner wants to do the charity work behind closed doors, good luck keeping tabs on that endeavor.Mother always said ” First impression counts.” Those words still ring true.
Further evidence: Back in 2014, a $400 million plus jackpot winner from CA, ticket bought in Milpitas, said that he wants to pour money into research for kids diseases etc etc. l have yet to read of any of his money going to that and other causes. This is not to say he is not doing it, but l * think if you give $10 mil and folks never hear from you again, you still look * good.
The only relevance of "him saying" she donated anything is for public opinion. Just a guess but it seems like the judge is allowing her some extra time to get her stuff together before ruling the lottery must release her name.
I "don't judge a book by its cover". To do so would be utterly gormless on my part.... One particular act of monetary donation has never established the content of ones character (imho). Here is hoping that all LP folks have at least 1 jackpot in there life
If the judge rules in her favor and grants immunity that may open a pandora's box for the state. As they would be 'changing' the rules after someone has won. Couldnt anyone who wins then sue the state to 'change the rules' since the state did it for this lady?
I am in the camp of NO for this lady. Now if the state wants to change the law NOW, which will effect future winners that is fine. Sorry but the state cannot change the rules after a win.
I agree. And the Bible ...Mathew I think...speaks or charity as the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. It means so much more to give quietly and anonymously. I would be sceptical of anyone advertising their good deeds or wanting to seek publicity for their actions. Seeking publicity for good deeds cheapens the whole giving.
And I cannot imagine dissing someone for only giving$ 250,000. That amount of money can work wonders for charities.
Immunity??? I am sure any decision will be limited to the facts of the situation. Remember, she did NOT win in an anonymous state.
” That’s a wonderful notion to live by- not judging a book by its cover”- but for the most part as humans, that is not true.Explain: That person Standing on the street corner with a cardboard cutout reading” hungry need money” for the most part, one may think, my contribution could be to a beer or hard liquor. The neighbor driving an expensive car while putting themselves in serious debt, one could assume they have come into money, yet they could be doing it to impress the neighbors who do have money, and lots of it. I would rather have winners not divulge their plans to the public, than say they going to do this or that.
Even the Son of Man remained Silent when asked a direct question from Pilate. Silence at times, is Golden.
I'll say it again, it is definitely time for a Jackpot Winners Protection Program.
I started signing the back of my tickets a long time ago by using the name of my first pet (Pete, the Parakeet) and the street I grew up on (Utah Ave). So if y'all see a big prize claimed by The Pete Utah Family Trust, you know it is me.
Ha! Ha!
Correct. The state law precedes her individual desire to be a snowflake.
Her privacy is equal to every. Other citizen that pays taxes. It's not in jeopardy.
The 2nd amendment allows her this Priveledge.
I'm a staunch believer in above board transparency. Deception has zero place in a business or those who pay into it.
That charity act was for taxes. Period. The funds will take 6-8 weeks to technically be in her account. Sec has strict rules on deposits of this size filtering into an account .
Awwwww
A 0.1% donation is the same as tipping a server 10 cents on a $100 check. As for setting a precedent, the court ruling only applies to NH.