Buyer Over 1st Hurdle : Lottery Ticket in Limbo, but It May Pay Off
A Northridge man who mailed a winning $50,000 lottery ticket in the wrong envelope inched closer to success Wednesday in his quest to collect the money, but learned he faces still more roadblocks before he sees his winnings.
In the largest such decision of its kind, the state Board of Control recommended that California Lottery officials pay $50,000 to Emil Nicholas, even though Nicholas cannot produce the winning ticket he bought from a North Hollywood delicatessen in April.
But a discouraged Nicholas learned that he faces another hurdle. The payment must be approved by the state Legislature, and even with the Legislature’s go-ahead it will be about a year before Nicholas gets paid, said Gail Bakarich, a lottery claims analyst.
“There’s nothing to be happy about,” Nicholas said after the ruling in his favor. “I feel nothing because it’s still going to be a long time before they settle it. It’s just going to be dragged out and dragged out.”
Nicholas, owner of a small interior design business in North Hollywood, flew to Sacramento with his lawyer to attend the board meeting. The three-member panel, which judges claims against state agencies, approved the payment by a 2-0 vote with one member abstaining. The statute creating the lottery requires a board determination before winnings can be paid on lost tickets.
Nicholas accidentally sent his “instant winner” ticket in an envelope marked for the weekly “Big Spin” drawing, and so the ticket is probably buried in a landfill with losing Big Spin tickets, officials said.
Ticket Photocopied
Lottery officials had insisted until June that payment without a ticket is impossible, even though Nicholas provided photocopies of the winning ticket, identities of witnesses who saw him purchase it, and a losing ticket with a contiguous serial number, which Nicholas bought with the winning ticket.
Nicholas purchased the two tickets April 29 at Marv’s Deli in North Hollywood. Nicholas said he called a lottery information line and was told to mail the ticket in an envelope provided by the merchant who sold him the ticket. Nicholas says the delicatessen’s owner, Herman Balkin, gave him an envelope for the Big Spin, which Balkin denies.
Three weeks later, Nicholas called the lottery office in Sacramento to ask about his winnings and learned of his error.
Nicholas said he could not get lottery officials to answer him until he enlisted the help of attorney Robert D. Rentzer of Encino. Rentzer filed a claim June 6 seeking $50,000 plus interest for Nicholas.
Nicholas, who has promised one-third of the money to Rentzer as a legal fee, has said he plans to use the rest of the money to fix up his house and buy a new car. But he is not counting his money yet.
The Legislature usually follows the Board of Control’s recommendations regarding lottery matters, which “means he has a very good chance of getting the money,” Bakarich said.
Because the legislation creating the lottery bars it from costing the state, Nicholas would have to be paid from lottery administration or prize funds if the Legislature approves, Bakarich said. The next lottery claims bill will not be submitted until January. If the Legislature approves payment, Nicholas will be paid next summer, she said.
In a separate action Wednesday, Rentzer filed a claim seeking to force the Lottery Commission to award an unclaimed $3.98-million lotto prize to three other winners in a lotto game last January.
Splitting a Jackpot
Rentzer filed the claim on behalf of Federico S. Aguimatang Jr., 41, a retired Navy petty officer. Aguimatang was one of four people who picked all six numbers in the Jan. 20 lotto drawing, which carried a $15.9-million jackpot, lottery officials said.
Lottery officials announced after the Jan. 20 drawing that the jackpot would be split among the four, but one winner filed no claim.
The 180-day period to claim the prize expired July 16 and lottery officials announced the money would go to the state public education fund, the main beneficiary of the lottery.
Rentzer contends that Aguimatang and the other two winners, a Panorama City bartender and a Hayward computer programmer, are entitled to split the unclaimed $3.98 million.
Lottery statutes require the unclaimed prize money be divided among “the claimants in equal shares,” Rentzer contends.
But Timothy Ford, lawyer for the lottery, said the Lottery Act states in at least two places that unclaimed prize money “shall revert to the benefit of the public.”
