Sam Haddad Wins Ottawa Lotto Court Case
After a number of years of family conflict, Sam Haddad has won the Ottawa lotto court case in which his sister filed a claim against his lotto winnings. The judge ruled that Haddad and his lotto ticket partner were the sole owners of the lotto winnings that had inspired a family feud. After the ruling, Haddad and those who supported him were seen dancing outside the courthouse.
History of the Winning Lotto Ticket Conflict
Samir Haddad and his long time friend and barber, Mike Dettorre, won $32 million in the 6/49 Lotto in Ontario in June 2008. The two men often bought lottery tickets together, and there had been much excitement and celebration when their lotto ticket numbers matched the winning numbers. On the day that the friends went to collect their prize money, a large number of family and extended family members went along with them to enjoy the celebration. Included in those who went along to celebrate with them was Leila Nahas, Haddad's sister.
Sometime after the win took place, Haddad's sister claimed that she had paid for a portion of the winning lottery ticket, and that she wanted her share of the winnings. Haddad said that her claim was not true and the siblings ended up in court, with Nahas suing her brother and Dettorre for a portion of the $32 million. Nahas claimed that she paid $1 of the $3 ticket and wanted $10.6 million of the winnings.
Sister of Lotto Winner Unhappy with Her Portion
While Haddad took home $16 million of the lotto winnings, he gave his sister $25,000, and had given his three brothers a total of $500,000. She claimed that she had not needed the money, and while she received only $25,000, her brothers all had their mortgages paid off.
Judge Robert Beaudoin, the decided that Nahas had no claims on the winning lottery ticket, and that it seemed more as if she was disgruntled and then made the claim. She claimed that she had forgotten that she had paid towards the cost of the winning ticket, and remembered some months later.
Judge Beaudoin said: "Her unhappiness with her unequal treatment is another possible answer as to why she pressed this claim. The action has divided a once-proud family. The trial is over but angry feelings will haunt this family for the foreseeable future."
