Legal dispute over jackpot hinges on sticky note deal

Discussing gambling disputes is a common topic here. In that light, the LVRJ has an article today over a jackpot sharing deal on a Megabucks jackpot. Here is the article: Legal dispute over jackpot hinges on sticky note deal.

As the article says, the first party asked the second party to bet $6 on Megabucks. He gave her an article about the game and put a sticky note on saying something to the effect to split any winnings. What happens next depends on whose version you believe.

Either the second party lost the $6 and played some more with her own money, at which point she won the jackpot. Another possibility is that the $6 produced a small win, and from that the jackpot was won, based on reinvesting the small win back into the machine. The first party seems to be saying it doesn't matter, as they had a deal to split ANY winnings.

For purposes of the poll, let's say for the sake of argument that the second party hit the jackpot with her own money. How would you rule?

Quote: LVRJ, Paragraph 6

That's where the plan fell apart. She told Perrin she lost his $6, striking it rich only with her own money.

Quote: LVRJ, Paragraph 11

One of Perrin's attorneys told the station that Walker admitted under oath that Perrin's $6 turned into $15 in credits, and that she kept playing until she hit the jackpot.

In my opinion, these two statements are contradictory. Or at least vague.

Did she play the $15 down to zero, reload, and then hit the jackpot? Or was she playing with the $15 winnings (or subsequent winnings) when she hit?

Quote: Wizard

For purposes of the poll, let's say for the sake of argument that the second party hit the jackpot with her own money. How would you rule?

In that scenario, it's her money. The fact that the other person encouraged her and/or 'taught' her the game is irrelevant.

Quote: Wizard

For purposes of the poll, let's say ...

In that case, the third poll choice is invalid.

her money. her jackpot.

friendships ruined regardless. if second party gives half, shes gonna feel cheated. if first party doesnt get half, hes gonna feel cheated.

According to part of that article:
"One of Perrin's attorneys told the station that Walker admitted under oath that Perrin's $6 turned into $15 in credits, and that she kept playing until she hit the jackpot."
We don't know whether those $15 in credits were what yielded the win or whether Walker had to rebuy after that, but a quick check of the past play history on the machine (which hopefully was saved) would be able to check.

However, the deal that the winnings be split is, I think, important. Normally it's "you're going to Vegas? Put $5 on Red for me and let me know how I do." I don't think it's reasonable for Walker to assert, given her history of past lottery play with Perrin, that the intent of the wagers on Megabucks was for anything other than a split. To wit: if she had hit the jackpot with the first $3 wagered, technically Perrin's money, she would not have understood that the jackpot should belong solely to Perrin.

I suppose one could make a proportional argument based on handle played: let H_P be the total handle of wagers resulting from Perrin's original $6, and we know that's at least $21 from the article ($6 original, $15 in winnings, presumably those were played prior to the jackpot hitting). And let H_W be the total handle of wagers resulting from any buy-in Walker made after Perrin's original $6 was exhausted. Then you could apportion the jackpot as Walker = H_W / (H_P + H_W) and Perrin = H_P / (H_P + H_W). But still, that doesn't properly account for the original agreement that the jackpot be "split". For example, if Walker was still playing Perrin's original $6 when the jackpot hit, she'd get nothing under that formula.

I think it will come down to judicial discretion. If Walker played for 10 hours on $100s of her own money after exhausting Perrin's $6, it doesn't make much sense to split the jackpot. However, it seems as if Walker won shortly after commencing play, as the story seems to indicate: "I was on my way to my room when I saw this machine and decided to play," the player was quoted in the statement from IGT. She told IGT she thought the slot machine had malfunctioned after lining up the Megabucks symbols, but her niece realized that she had won $12,769,933." If so, it seems counter to the spirit of the agreement that the jackpot not be split.

Nevada law says the jackpot goes to the person pushing the button, right? So award the jackpot to the the button-pusher (Walker) thus fulfilling the obligations of the casino and the Megabucks consortium. Anything after that is a matter of contract law between the two parties (Perrin and Walker).

Under your conditions (Walker plays with her own money), and not having any further information, I'd award the whole thing to Walker. If records show Walker kept playing at the same machine after winning the $15, and didn't put any more of her own money in, I'd order they split it. I would also order they split if Walker left the machine and played later inserting a slot ticket with the $15. The issue gets messier if she mixed some of her own money with that won from Perrin's original $6, but I would still award Perrin an amount proportional to his "investment".

Quote: Wizard

For purposes of the poll, let's say for the sake of argument that the second party hit the jackpot with her own money. How would you rule?

If it was her own money, then she should get the prize. But, how in the world can you prove it? If she were using a player card, it might be possible to track down coin in (bets) and coin out (wins) information during the winning session, but I doubt you could track drop (bills or tickets inserted). If she inserted $6 in cash and hit the jackpot, that's not too good for her. What if she inserted $9? Which $3 is hers, or do they split the prize based on the cash inserted. What if she inserted $100 because she used the $6 for tips already. Now, we would need to know how much of her money she intended to use? It would be unfair to credit her with 94% of the win if she intended to cashout when she got down to $94.

Lesson learned: don't ever gamble for other people.

IMO Perrin's attempt at a contract should not be considered valid; if Texas law says otherwise I don't agree with it.

What an idiot. Of course he had to trust her totally ... turns out he shouldnt have. And I don't even blame her.

Agree with 7out.

The directive said $6, split any winnings. Walker agreed by playing with the $6. The $6 won $15 At that point, the player decided that the winnings were to be split by playing out the credits. If she had cashed out the $15 and then put her own money in, she would not be responsible. But Walker didn't. Inotherwords, the credits were the split winnings, and therefore, the jackpot was split winnings. If the credits had run out and the person put in more money, the winnings are no longer split and the jackpot is entirely Walkers. Still, I would give the friend some of the money.

The friend should pay the other friend 1/2 of the proceeds after taxes and accountant fees if the $6 was responsible for the jackpot. Otherwise it's Walkers.

Just more reasons to never, ever take money from a friend to gamble in Vegas. Nothing good ever comes from it!

The friend should pay the other friend 1/2 of the proceeds after taxes and accountant fees if the $6 was responsible for the jackpot.

I would fing the only defense against this was is she went to her room, wrote out a check for $7.50 and mailed it to her friend before using the $15 credit. I see no problem here , only than a legal one. If she was playing on the original $6 investment, she owes her partner half. Notice I said PARTNER, not FRIEND!

Quote: Wizard

the first party asked the second party to bet $6 on Megabucks. He gave her an article about the game and put a sticky note on saying something to the effect to split any winnings.

Did he even specify equal split? If he had to give her an article was she utterly ignorant, if so should more of the burden fall on him due to his unexercised superior knowledge?

Would anyone really say the "winnings" were the fifteen dollars in credits? Thats like saying the winning shared lottery ticket was a "free ticket for next week's drawing" but the agreement only extends to the first week.

Her different stories shows that each is concocted.

I would indeed impose a fifty fifty split on "the winnings"....meaning the jackpot.

Heck, I used to buy a weekly lottery ticket for an office pool and I always wrote on the ticket in advance "coworker's pool ticket".

Whenever someone asks me to place a wager for them, I'll take the money, put it in my pocket, and then give them a sad and serious look and solemnly say "I'm sorry, your bet lost". The smart ones change their mind and ask for their money back.

If she hit the jackpot with her own money, then the jackpot is hers.

Part of the case will hinge on whether or not a contract was in force. My, albeit limited, knowledge of contract law would tell me that there was indeed a contract, in that she performed a service for the other party. By accepting the money, and betting in the fashion indicated, she fulfilled what would nominally indicate that she was agreeing to the contract.

The second part will indeed be whether or not she lost his money, and then proceeded to gamble with his own, or if the jackpot winnings were made in part with his own money. Some of this might be mitigated on the terms of the contract. For example, if he wrote on the sticky note, "Take this $6 and bet it on Megabucks and any winnings you get, we'll split it," then I think she will be out of luck. Once the court finds that there was a legitimate contract, and the contract was performed, then she will have to pay out the money. On the other hand, if the sticky note said, "Anything you win with this $6, we'll split it," then the issue will get thorny.

I've had to deal with a similar situation, but on a much smaller scale, and not dealing with gambling. In my business as a liquidator, I sometimes work with other people, and occasionally front the money for possible deals. I had a "partner" at one point in time, to whom I had given a large chunk of money, with the deal being that he could purchase any liquidations, and we would split the profits on the deals. I was fronting the money, and he fronted the labor, so it was fair to me. He ended up coming across a really great liquidation deal that made, I think, around $25k. But when I asked him about, I was told that he bought that deal with HIS money, and not with mine, and thus he wasn't obligated to split the profits with me. (Which is why I'm not sure exactly how much it made, but I can guesstimate.) Lesson learned. I no longer partner with that individual, and all contracts now indicate that ANY liquidations are a split profit, as long as the person is working with my money.

To me, the sad part about the article in question is the amount of money involved. After taxes, let's go ahead and say it will be around $6 million dollars. It's sad that splitting the money, getting $3 million, just isn't enough for her. After the lawsuit and paying lawyers and everything else, she may end up wishing that she had just split the money.

It would have been easily tracked by Aria had they known there was going to be a dispute, but they would have no way of knowing this. Regardless of if she was using a players card, you can look up all recent transactions on the machines. I feel the jackpot should be spit due the sticky note contract.