Your Partner Could Land You In Jail For The Christmas Lottery Gordo

Lucky in sports, unlucky in love. It can be said that this saying has acquired the force of law in some jurisdictions, coinciding with the Christmas Lottery draw to see how a cause for joy turns into a legal struggle. Although the casuistry varied, it almost always reached a trial due to a lack of agreement on how the prize would be distributed.

One of the most revealing sentences was handed down by the Provincial Court of Madrid, which already in 2015 expressed its regret that “once again the courts had to rule on cases related to lottery draws.” The court case ended the relationship. In fact, the man was sentenced to pay almost 149,000 euros to his ex-girlfriend. Despite the fact that both went to the bank to collect the first prize, when things went wrong, he wanted to keep the entire amount paid out in his account. As there was no written agreement, the court agreed with the plaintiff, a document given to the employee of the entity to manage the collection was required, where both were listed as beneficiaries, their respective signatures and IDs .

That is why, when someone makes a deal to buy tithes that they later share with members of a group, it is important to record a willingness to split the potential rewards. “It is not necessary to go to a notary, but you have to identify the tenth, the people who participate with their names, surnames and IDs and what each of them contributes,” explains Montero’s lawyer, Angel Perez. Aramburu Law Firm. A common way to do this is to photocopy the ticket and sign on paper, in addition to the signatures of the participants in the draw. Thus, for example, if three people play a number equally, each would receive 33% of the prize. These are precautions that can also be taken through electronic means, such as WhatsApp or email. In these cases, it is advisable to follow the same steps and take a picture of the tenth, attach it to the application group or email.

However, if the purchaser of the ticket is married under the matrimonial economic regime of joint venture, in which the benefits derived indirectly by both spouses are equal to both, the prize shall pass into society and upon dissolution shall be credited with half the money. will be given. For each. This is a situation which is regulated by Article 1351 of the Civil Code and which has been answered by the Supreme Court as well. However, as stated in a ruling last October, if the “total liquidation of the company” is omitted to include the lottery money, as long as its existence was known by the other member of the couple However, this will not be an additional settlement may be requested later. “In such a case, the resignation may be appreciated.”

minimum requirements

However, since not everything is black or white in law, suspicions arise when the couple actually separates, i.e. without papers involved. In these cases, jurisprudence has understood that the joint venture is broken, so that there is no obligation to share the prize. For this, certain minimum requirements must be met, such as that it is a longstanding condition, and cannot be a simple interruption of coexistence. Conversely, if the economic regime was that of a separation of property, in which each spouse owns all property acquired before and during the marriage, the general rule is that “the prize would go to the husband who bought the tenth”, Montero. Connects Aramburu’s lawyer. And if both had done so, it would have been on the basis of their contribution.

Something similar would happen in the case of common law couples, i.e. if they are governed by the same economic regime as the joint venture, then the rewards would have to be shared. Otherwise, it would be for the person who bought the ticket, unless it is proved that the intention of both was to share profits and losses, for example, through the existence of a common account.

With this type of conflict, caution must be exercised, as they can end up in prison, warns José-Alberto Molina, from Proluco Abogados y Economistas. The most frequent offense for which the courts have condemned is misappropriation, typified in Article 253 of the Penal Code. “If the affected person can prove that he was a co-owner of the tithe, then anyone who does not want to share the prize will be committing an offence,” he explains. In this line, a sentence of the Provincial Court of Madrid comes to the fore, which sentenced a man who, while winning the Gordo, conspired to leave his ex-girlfriend without half of the prize obtained from the tithe, which he had obtained from mangoes. Bought with Funds. Specifically, he invented that before the draw he had created a fund with other members of his family, so that each contributed one ticket, so he received only one-sixth of the total prize.

Although judges are relieved of fear, the Supreme Court stresses the importance of establishing by reliable means how distribution will be made, in order to avoid problems. As stated by the State Lotteries and Gambling, in these cases “the greatest prize is to be shared.”