Family Law
Wife Sues Husband for Share of Secret $600K Lottery Win
Posted May 12, 2008 1:29 PM CST
By Martha Neil
It was a secret that surely could not be kept for long. But Arnim Ramdass allegedly tried.
The airline mechanic, 52, disconnected the phone line at home and forbade his stay-at-home wife, Donna Campbell, 48, to watch television, Campbell claims in a lawsuit. Eventually, however, she learned the truth: Ramdass, along with 16 other mechanics at Miami International Airport, had won a $19 million lottery jackpot. Split among the 17 workers, it amounted to a $600,000 lump-sum payday, before taxes, for each of them, reports the Miami Herald.
In her suit, Campbell claims Ramdass fraudulently conspired to conceal the lottery payout from her, and contends she is entitled to a 50 percent share of her husband's take from the winning ticket because it was purchased with marital assets.
Once the lawsuit is resolved, the newspaper says, she plans to divorce him.
However, Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey temporarily dismissed Campbell's case on Thursday, saying Campbell failed to show why she should have a right to her husband's lottery winnings, the Miami Herald reported. Campbell and her lawyer have 20 days to amend the complaint.
Updated at 4:58 p.m. May 15 to include coverage of Thursday's court date.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in Web Comment Cost 2 Their Jobs
- NU Law Dean Adjusts 'Super Lawyers' Rankings to Reflect Law School Size
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
msg
May 13, 2008 8:00 AM CST
She should divorce the evil bastard!
Ellen Barshevsky
May 14, 2008 5:54 AM CST
If she divorces him, there is no guarantee she will collect the bucks over time. I say she stays with him and makes sure she gets “paid” for being there. After all, loss of consortium can cost money. There’s no evidence the hubby doesn’t still want to have sex with his wife; just that he doesn’t want to pay her money
msg
May 14, 2008 2:36 PM CST
Loss of consortium is a tort claim - she doesn’t have a tortious claim against him - this is a domestic matter you dorf! In a divorce in most states she is presumed to get 50% of all the assets!
Li Yuan
May 16, 2008 5:28 AM CST
Woman should get 50% of assets, including winning lottery ticket. After all, fshe give sex to husband free for years of marriage. Only fair that husband pay for sex from her and now he get new woman for sex with money.
Al Dorman
May 16, 2008 5:57 AM CST
I question why she even married the guy in the first place. Thnk how many years she was known as Mrs. RAMDASS. She is only getting what might be expected from her loving hubby, Mr. RAMDASS. He now has money so he can RAMDASS some other lovely babe.. I say caveat KEESTER!
T.
May 16, 2008 7:18 AM CST
I’m not certain if Florida is a commnity property state. But, even if it is, the husband can make a seperate property claim if he can adequately trace the funds that were used to purchase the ticket. Say he uses the dollar for dollar method, and proves that the buck he used for the ticket (or nickels, or dimes, etc.) came from his seperate estate…he can argue that his plan was to place those (mutated) funds back into his seperate account once they are received.
There’s a slim to nil chance that he can trace the funds; but, it would be a fun case to argue.
Jas
May 16, 2008 7:48 AM CST
Li Yuan, are you saying that all Wives are just whores?
Diamond Jim
May 16, 2008 8:27 AM CST
When his loyal spouse gets one-half his money his condition will match his last name.
Criminal Defense Law Center
May 16, 2008 8:29 AM CST
Is she divorcing him over the money or because he was so stupid as to believe he could keep the information from her?
taxman
May 16, 2008 9:00 AM CST
In reply to #9, yes.
;-)
Scott
May 16, 2008 9:37 AM CST
Unless he can show the tickets were purchased from separate property he will have to give up 50%. I imagine it will be difficult for him to show that the ticket was purchased from separate funds not mingled with his community assets (ie his paycheck). What a lovely guy!
Greg Brady
May 16, 2008 10:05 AM CST
He was the one working and earning their living, she doesn’t deserve one penny of the money. She’s probably ugly and that’s why she had to stay in the house. He should keep it all for himself and kick her to the curb.
Heather
May 16, 2008 11:05 AM CST
I can’t believe how big a deal this apparently is to everyone… we’re talking about her share being $300k—that’s likely less than $200k (net taxes and attorney fees). Who is nuts enough to put themselves through at that for a ONE-SHOT payment of less than $200k?!
Kristy
May 16, 2008 11:06 AM CST
He forbade her to watch TV? That’s the best part of staying at home! A person can only do so much laundry.
JR
May 16, 2008 11:12 AM CST
These are lawyers posting these comments? If so, it is a sad commentary on the state of our profession.
Jim
May 16, 2008 11:16 AM CST
He “forbade” her to watch TV? Sounds like a solid marriage right there….
Peepin Tom
May 16, 2008 11:19 AM CST
#13—You are the one who is nuts if you don’t understand that to many people over $100k is alot of money. Get over yourself.
MPC
May 16, 2008 12:46 PM CST
I think she might have to divorce him to establish a claim. Even assuming that FL is a community property state and assuming that the lottery ticket was paid for with from the marriage’s shared assets, I am aware of no legal obligation on the husband to share winnings with his wife when they remain married. As long as they remain married they could keep their winnings and loses confidential and, unless there is some other cause of action available, there would be no remedy available for the aggrieved partner.
realist
May 16, 2008 4:48 PM CST
Good grief! Why is this in the ABA newsletter?
Post it when it is a final ruling. Sounds like these people are trying to fight their marital fights in the courts.
R
May 20, 2008 9:10 AM CST
I’m with #15. Disgusting.
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.