Family’s lottery lawsuit shows why tigers eat their young

TAGs: Camelot, Euromillions, Lottery

euromillions-lottery-winner-lawsuitA EuroMillions lottery jackpot winner’s story goes a long way toward explaining why tigers eat their young.

This week, The Sun reported on the “fury” of some UK National Lottery players over the fact that the jackpot has rolled over nine times without being claimed by a winner. The prize currently stands at £22.9m for Friday’s draw.

Lottery operator Camelot made jackpots harder to win one year ago by adding 10 balls to the original 49, which it claimed would boost interest by allowing the jackpot to climb to Powerball-worthy heights, but which also reduced the odds of winning the jackpot from from one in 14m to one in 45m.

Frankly, given the ‘monkey’s paw’ legacy of many lottery winners, we’re not sure winning a lottery jackpot is worth the bother. That legacy wrote another sad chapter this week after a UK judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by a son against his lottery winning father.

In 2011, factory worker Dave Dawes won a £101m EuroMillions jackpot and he and his wife Angie doled out around £30m of this bounty to family members, close friends and to various charitable endeavors. But Dave’s son Michael (pictured left) ended up suing his dear old dad because the ungrateful brat felt dad was under an obligation to continue making it rain in perpetuity.

Dave and Angie initially gave Michael around £1m, but the profligate son reportedly blew through the lot in a single month, spending £550k on a house for himself and his partner James Beedle and giving £250k to friends and Beedle’s family members.

With his windfall gone, Michael did his best Oliver Twist impression by asking dad for more. Dave was surprised by his son’s rapacious spending, and a little annoyed by the fact that Michael had quit a lucrative IT job after receiving the initial £1m, but Dave began making regular deposits into Michael’s bank account, believing this was better than handing his son lump sums.

Michael continued enjoy the lifestyle to which he Beedle had grown accustomed – at one point they were spending around £30k per month, including £4k on groceries alone. By March 2013, Dave and Angie had had enough, and informed Michael that the familial tit was dry.

Michael didn’t take the news well, demanding another £5m and drunkenly insulting his step-mom Angie when his demands weren’t met. When Dave cut off all contact with his son, Michael took his father to court, claiming that his “expectation” was that his father’s bank transfers “would be the process throughout my life.”

The judge overseeing the case made swift work of Michael’s claims, ruling that the delusional son had been “provided with the funds to have a comfortable life, but for his own reasons he chose not to take that opportunity.”


views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of