He argued that his luck won the $80 million jackpot. A court ruled he had to split it with his ex.

Search

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
18,959
Tokens
How much credit can a person take for good luck? That was the question at the center of a high-stakes divorce case that came before a Michigan appeals court last week.

A three-judge panel ruled June 13 that Richard Zelasko must share the $80 million lottery jackpot he won while going through a divorce with his now-ex-wife, Mary Zelasko. The court upheld the decision of an arbitrator who reasoned that because the couple had shared past losses, the aptly named Rich — by his own account a longtime gambler — should share the fruits of his good fortune.

But his attorney, in a court filing cited by the Associated Press, argued that the credit was his alone.

“Rich was lucky,” attorney Scott Bassett said, “but it was his luck, not Mary’s, that produced the lottery proceeds.”

The couple had been married seven years when they both filed for divorce in 2011, but the divorce wasn’t final until 2018, the AP reported. When Richard Zelasko bought the winning ticket in 2013, they were living separately while the arbitrator worked out the details of their split, including child support payments and custody of their three children.

After taxes and deductions, the winnings totaled $38,873,628, according the court filing.

Months after Richard Zelasko had his big win, the arbitrator noted that he had not paid child support. The court also noted that in the years they had been together, Mary had earned roughly three times as much from her job as Richard did from the business he ran, a T-shirt shop according to Bassett’s oral arguments.

More than a month passed before Richard Zelasko realized he had hit the jackpot. In a winner’s profile on the Mega Millions website, he said he had left the winning ticket in his wallet while going on a vacation and a few golfing trips.

“That would have been a terrible time to lose your wallet,” the website quoted him as saying.

He said he had played the lottery for years and liked trying his luck on roulette at the casino, and despite the windfall said he intended to keep playing the lottery.

After filing for divorce, the couple agreed to appoint arbitrator John Mills “to decide all contested issues,” according to the court filing. But Mills died in 2014, after deciding that the lottery winnings were part of the marital estate but before the arbitration process was complete.

“As losses throughout the marriage were shared jointly,” Mills said per the court filing, “so should winnings be shared jointly.”

Richard Zelasko asked the court to vacate Mills’s decision, arguing that the arbitrator was biased against him and that “death was the ultimate disqualification,” as Bassett said in oral arguments.

The appeals court ultimately decided the case on the narrower question of whether Mills had made a legal error, ruling that his decision should stand. In a statement to People, Bassett said that his client had already filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its decision and that if the motion were denied, they would appeal the decision to the Michigan Supreme Court.






https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.w...d-he-had-split-it-with-his-ex/?outputType=amp
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
85,696
Tokens
Doesn't seem right. I know you split the assets acquired during the marriage, but it seems to me that if you filed for divorce and are living separately, then assets acquired after those events shouldn't qualify

The courts are taking form over substance IMO, but maybe that's how the laws are written and / or maybe that's a precedence that's already been established. It should be pretty black and white I suppose, they're not reinventing the wheel here.
 

Retired; APRIL 2014 Thank You Gambling
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
12,632
Tokens
This really seems incorrect
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Messages
1,770
Tokens
Wouldn't do it.

Tell the Liberal court they no longer have jurisdiction to rule cases and have them sent back to traffic court

If they go against this, you are now rich. Pay someone to go beat him and his wife with a baseball bat
 

Retired; APRIL 2014 Thank You Gambling
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
12,632
Tokens
She is obviously entitled to MORE child support now,,<< but nothing more,,

thats why 50 cent and all those other jerkoffs keep having baby mammas and never have to pay 10 mil$$ paternity suites,,, they put all their money in Trusts,,

Ahhhhhh nevermind,,, just read the bottom of the story,,, Michigan,,, LIBERAL ASFKKKKK,,,,

sorry dude,,, your screwed
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
20,303
Tokens
I don't think it is fair considering they were separated. However the law is what it is & quite honestly I would not be playing any sort of game that could give me a life changing payout until that divorce was finalized.
 

EV Whore
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
19,916
Tokens
When I got divorced, if memory serves the only assets considered marital were those acquired prior to separation.
That goes for liabilities too, can't have it both ways, and it seems that is his strongest argument.
One of my biggest concerns was that my ex would take out a massive loan to pay legal bills and I'd be stuck with half of it, and that wasn't the case.

By the courts logic he could have taken out a 100k loan and gone and lost it at the casino and sent her a bill for 50k.
Since she makes 3x more money than him, is he now entitled to a portion of her earnings aince separation?
Does she now pay off half his debt acquired since 2011?
Doubtful. I have to imagine this would get overturned.
 

Retired; APRIL 2014 Thank You Gambling
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
12,632
Tokens
when i got divorced, if memory serves the only assets considered marital were those acquired prior to separation.
That goes for liabilities too, can't have it both ways, and it seems that is his strongest argument.

By the courts logic he could have taken out a 100k loan and gone and lost it at the casino and sent her a bill for 50k.
Since she makes 3x more money than him, is he now entitled to a portion of her earnings aince separation?
Does she now pay off half his debt acquired since 2011?
Doubtful. I have to imagine this would get overturned.

yeppp
 

hacheman@therx.com
Staff member
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
139,160
Tokens
Hate to say it but makes since since they weren't divorced yet.

On the other hand, maybe she shouldn't receive a penny if she was the one who initiated the divorce in any way.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,106,779
Messages
13,438,948
Members
99,339
Latest member
billcunninghamhomeloans
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com