IBJNews

Hairstylists testify they agreed to share lottery jackpots

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Seven Indianapolis hairstylists who are fighting for a share of a $9.5 million lottery prize bought by a co-worker testified Wednesday that they had all agreed to share any winnings from tickets purchased at the same time as those for an office pool.

Marion County Judge Heather Welch said she will decide by Friday whether to freeze the jackpot until the dispute over the ticket is settled.

Hairstylist Christina Shaw has maintained that the winning ticket in the Feb. 16 Hoosier Lotto drawing was one she bought for herself, not one of the tickets she purchased for the group. But the other hairstylists testified that Shaw bought the ticket at the same time and place she bought those for the pool — something they said they had all agreed not to do.

Lucy Lewis Johnston, who owns Lou's Creative Styles, 5126 N Franklin Road, said buying a personal ticket with pool tickets would make it impossible "to determine which was whose ticket."

Hairstylist Linda Sue Stewart said that's why they had all agreed that any such tickets "were all considered part of the pool."

A parade of current and former salon employees all testified to the agreement and said all of the women who played the lottery — including Shaw — knew the rules.

Shaw did not attend the hearing, and her attorney didn't take part. Wednesday's hearing dealt solely with whether the $9.5 million payout should be frozen until the court can determine to whom the winning ticket actually belongs. Welch issued a temporary restraining order last week barring the Hoosier Lottery Commission from awarding the prize money to Shaw for 10 days.

The lottery commission isn't opposing the proposed injunction.

Bryan Corbin, a spokesman for the Indiana Attorney General's Office, which represents the commission, said the agency "takes no position on the preliminary injunction or on the merits of the dispute between the stylists. The commission's only interest is in paying the proper claimant. The ticket-ownership decision is solely up to the court to determine, not the commission, which does not have the authority to decide ownership."

A lottery spokesman didn't immediately return a phone call from The Associated Press seeking comment.

The women filed into the elevator outside the courtroom without talking to reporters.

Attorney Scott Montross, who represents the hairstylists fighting for a share of the prize, told reporters after the hourlong hearing that his clients were more hurt than angry.

"They're disappointed that it came to this," Montross said. "They're much more disappointed than they are angry."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • It's Not Rocket Science
    The purchaser should make a copy of all of the tickets purchased for the group, and distribute it amongst all players. That way there is no doubt which tickets are part of the group purchase.
  • It is the fault of the ticket buyer.
    Next time, when a group buys a ticket-or tickets-draw up a contract that states all tickets bought at such and such a place, at a given time, belongs to all envolved and therefore should be shared. Everyone should sign it. You cannot trust friends when it comes to this much money.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. First, the Athenaeum is going to have to get past the hurdle with the Lockerbie residents and the agreement that the parcel would be residential. Second, and in my opinion, this prime piece of property should include parking, PLUS, a black box theater(s), some market rate and affordable artist housing and a plan to renovate and reconfigure the second story theater. I would negotiate to add the DeHaan property surface parking lot into the development mix, place a one story surface parking garage on the DeHaan lot on the street level (for the Dehaan tenants use during the daytime) and add a second story to the garage that would become an addition to the current second story theater and then change the direction of the theater by moving the stage across the alley and on top of the DeHaan lot parking. You can add all the stage elements that are currently missing from the Athenaeum stage to make it more attractive for use by Ballet, Opera and traveling productions. Plus, the theater changes would probably help solve some of the soundproofing issues. Alas,it does not seem to be a part of the strategic plan to conduct a study to determine best use of the property. Seems like the current plan is a quick and easy move that ignores the property best use/potential and any strategic property planning for the effect on future generations.

  2. I recall that MSA's pilings are still in the ground and hard to remove. It’s not likely any proposal will include significant underground construction/parking because of this. Start adding 2 floors of retail, 8 floors of parking and 5-10 floors of possible hotel, and/or 10-20 floors of residential, and you are at 30 floors already with possible expansion of all the uses. But then again I could be wrong.

  3. Accoriding to their website there is no deadline to the Do Not Call list. What is this article referring to??

  4. On what planet are they entitled to this largesse from the stockholders? These people make multi-million dollar salaries: Pay for your own personal travel.

  5. It matters because they're already paid enormously fat salaries: Pay for your own personal travel. Being "taxed on it" isn't a valid excuse--so what? They're still being gifted a raft of luxury perks from somebody else's money on top of an enormous, lavish salary.

ADVERTISEMENT