Multiple parties still embroiled in gooey legal battle over who owns the winning ticket
By Kate Northrop
With the expiration date just weeks away, a retailer is asking a judge to freeze a ticket that won a $12.8 million Arizona Lottery The Pick jackpot while the court figures out who it belongs to.
Circle K is trying to get a judge to stop a $12.8 million jackpot-winning ticket from expiring until the legal dispute over ownership is finally determined.
In February, the Arizona Lottery found itself named in a messy but fascinating lawsuit involving a Circle K employee and said company, the latter of which has been starting to take measures to ensure that no one loses out.
The legal battle involves Circle K store manager Robert Gawlitza, who clocked out, changed out of his uniform, and purchased a lottery ticket left behind by a customer the day after it won a $12.8 million jackpot.
"Who goes out to their car and changes their clothing to come in to purchase tickets unless you have a plan?" attorney Josh Kolsrud told 12News. "If there's any evidence that he was aware of what was going on, and used that knowledge, that insider knowledge, to buy that ticket, Circle K wins this case."
Before Gawlitza could cash it in, corporate at Circle K caught wind of the transaction in Scottsdale and stepped in. The company acquired the ticket and secured it for safekeeping until rightful ownership could be determined.
Gawlitza argues that, since he technically purchased the ticket, the jackpot should be his. But Circle K cited Arizona Administrative Code that says tickets returned to the retailer and remain unsold are owned by the retailer.
The store chain filed a lawsuit against Gawlitza and named the Arizona Lottery as a defendant to prompt the court to determine whether the ticket sale was valid to begin with and who is entitled to the prize, but time is running out.
It's because lottery winners in Arizona have 180 days from the draw date to claim prizes, and with the drawing having taken place back in November 2025, the deadline is this month.
In April, Circle K filed a temporary restraining order to ask Judge Kreamer to stop the Arizona Lottery from allowing the ticket to expire on May 23 so that legal proceedings can continue and ownership can be determined.
"It's basically Circle K telling the lottery to push the brakes and not do anything until Judge Kreamer decides the issues in the case," Kolsrud explained in an interview.
Court records show that a hearing is scheduled for May 15.
Kolsrud believes that this unique case could turn out to be a great learning opportunity for future lawyers.
"This will totally be a question on the State Bar," Kolsrud remarked. "So law students, beware, this case is coming to you."
Circle K has many legal matters and settlements going on, and those payments could come from this $12 million lottery money. Circle K is not a saint here. If this were only a $10,000 winning ticket, would Circle K really hire law firms charging $300 per hour to defend its store policy, business principle, and lottery integrity? Probably not. That is why they are fighting so hard in court.
If this were only about store policy and principle, they could let the ticket expire and end the fight. But they are asking the judge to keep the $12 million prize alive. That says plenty.
it's probably about protecting their image too. if someone who doesn't follow the details of news stories just hears "circle k employee claims customer's winning ticket," they're going to stop buying tickets at circle k. they aren't going to look into it more and learn the whole story.
strange things are afoot at the circle k
* Here's a question: Why did Robert change out of the company uniform & go back in to purchase the ticket unless he knew what he was doing was against company policy?
* As an example: If you driving a red getaway car in a bank heist do you ditch the red car for another color or not? What was your purpose in switching cars to evade arrest or you simply thought another color would be a good idea?
Couldn't the prize be placed in an escrow until true ownership is determined?
I don't think the Expiration Date should be extended for this ticket or any ticket that is deemed a winner according to MUSCL and any state lottery that has expiration dates printed on the ticket.
It undermines the integrity of the lottery if the Court allows the date to be frozen or extended, possibly every state lottery could be sued and the date becomes meaningless.
The parties involved were aware of the pending date and should have asked a judge for a expedited hearing on the ownership of the ticket.
Whenever I go onto a retailer buy lottery or whatever .If I see a ticket that someone didn't purchase on the machine,I always ask is it for sale and if so I'll buy..I just did that a couple of days ago on a Powerball ticket.. Unfortunately it wasn't a winner.. Yeah that was shady on the worker and he should have purchased it before the drawing.I see no problem in that..
Why don't they cash the ticket and split 50/50? It's found money for both parties. If they let the ticket expire then it's nada.
I agree that's the best possible solution around the expiration looming.
The ticket is between the holder and the lottery. The vendor circle k has zero legal standing simply cuz it's a work policy. Cash in, cash out.
Technically the person was no longer on the clock.
Only thing I may be confused on . Is, : had the drawing already happened and it was the next day , so he bought it knowing it was the jackpot winner ??
He knew it was a winner and clocked out and came back as a customer to buy the winning ticket. Just give the guy da money.
When Gawlitza was behind the counter, why didn't he just put the money in the register and take the ticket? The ticket was already printed and Circle K now has the money. If he was concerned about cashing it since he was an employee he could have asked someone else to cash it for him. He didn't need to change into civilian clothing or even disclose that it was he that purchased the ticket.
If I had to guess, this employee probably found winning tickets in the past and the company probably kept them without giving him or any other employee a dime. Probably didn't want them to keep 12M. Either way, should have just kept the ticket, dropped cash in the drawer to balance the lottery sales ledger and kept his mouth shut. Highly doubt the lottery will extend the claim period as the state benefits greatly if the ticket goes unclaimed. Greed has consequences.
The legal battle involves Circle K store manager Robert Gawlitza, who clocked out, changed out of his uniform, and purchased a lottery ticket left behind by a customer the day after it won a $12.8 million jackpot.
What do you mean "left behind by a customer"? The lottery can't find the customer?
They can't roll back the camera and find the customer who purchased it in the first place?
That's who I think should get it, if the customer didn't want it that's another story but I
read as a customer accidentally left it there.
The customer intended to purchase $80 worth of tickets but only had $60 dollars on him, so he left $20 worth of tickets at the store. Those unpaid tickets sat there until the next day when Gawlitza noticed one of the tickets was a winner and decided to buy it
This seems pretty simple. Lottery policy is that tickets are non-refundable, and tickets printed but not paid for belong to the retailer. On average, the retailer loses 50% of the face value of those tickets.
Someone asked for a ticket, the retailer printed it, the customer didn't have enough money to pay for it, so the ticket belongs to the retailer.
You can't seriously argue that one can buy a ticket that legally belongs to the retailer after the drawing which reveals it to be a winning ticket.
If you want to buy tickets left behind by people who didn't have enough money to pay for them, you need to do so BEFORE the drawing.
The person missed out on $12 Million Dollar Jackpot because they were short by $20 bucks.
(That's so crazy and sad at the same time.)
I cannot help but wonder, considering all of the attention that this is getting from Lottery Post, and *probably* many other state, regional, and national news outlets, that the original customer who came up $20 short (for whatever reason) has figured out that they were the one that originally missed out on all of that money?
It probably happens occasionally, but I do not think that there would be a great number of times that a person places an order for $80-$85 tickets and ends up leaving with $60 of them would happen a lot. That would be pretty much a giveaway clue...
If it were me, I am not sure that I would ever want to know. I would have to increase my water intake to 5 or 6 gallons of water each day to account for my tears.
Best wishes to all for any way you play.
"If this were only about store policy and principle, they could let the ticket expire and end the fight. "
Do you think they're morons? Sometimes it costs money to maintain your principles and occasionally you come out ahead. Of course this is entirely about the money, and I've got no idea why anyone would think otherwise.
"Why did Robert change out of the company uniform & go back in to purchase the ticket unless he knew what he was doing was against company policy? "
He did it in the (likely futile) hope that he had found an actual loophole in the policy. And he went to that trouble because he knew what the ticket was worth and he knew Circle K would contest ownership/the sale.
"Couldn't the prize be placed in an escrow until true ownership is determined? "
I'd think an LLC overseen by a neutral 3rd party. The working assumption is that somebody will get the money, so why not let the lottery process the claim in the meantime? While it would be a nice thing to do I'm not seeing a legal obligation for the lottery to depart from policy simply because people are arguing about ownership. That sounds like a player problem rather than a lottery problem.
"The ticket is between the holder and the lottery. "
No, the ticket is between the owner and the lottery. The policy means the store had no intention of selling any tickets to their employee. The value of the ticket also means the store had no intention of selling it to anyone. You can't buy what isn't for sale, even if you do sneak a few bucks into the register.
This is a wild one down in Arizona. It reminds me why it's so important to keep your tickets safe and clear about who bought them, especially when you're buying for a group or at work. Here in Michigan, we've had our share of ticket disputes, but usually not with the store itself trying to freeze things like this. Hopefully, the judge does the right thing and protects that prize until they figure out who the true owner is. It's a shame to see a big jackpot tied up in court like this instead of going to a winner.
Is it even possible that the judge has the authority to halt the expiration of a ticket from a multi-state lottery?
They would be wise to to settle on a split (in writing), then cash in the ticket.
Exactly. No argument here, it's clear it belongs to the retailer.
Circle K owns the ticket.
that depends on what arizona lottery laws say about who or what can claim prizes. in some states, only actual people can claim, not legal entities like trusts, llcs and businesses.
circle k can have corporate policy that says anything they want, but when it conflicts with what a gov't agency says, the gov't wins.
I wonder if the customer could still have a claim to the Jackpot. This is all so fascinating. They could make a movie out of it. If the customer doesn't have a claim I can't imagine how they must be feeling knowing they let 12 million go over $20.
I'm gonna follow up on this case because the employee seems to have technically done some legal by clocking out and coming back as a customer. The ticket was available and he paid for it. The store could have paid for it same day why didn't they?
I also don't feel like an expiration date should be extended. They had enough time to figure this out.
I don't know what Arizona policy says but the purchase may still be defeated for the following reasons:
the judge might decide that neither the clerk nor circle k are entitled to the prize and the money goes back to the arizona lottery as an unclaimed prize. i'd actually put money on that.
An extension of time may be unnecessary, irrelevant and impertinent.
While the clerk of the court is in the physical possession of the ticket and could present it before the expiration date, Circle K could seek an injunction order against the lottery not to pay, because the ticket was a property of Circle K at the time it was sold the day after drawing and was not eligible for sale to anyone after the drawing
That will be an interesting outcome but I doubt it.
Circle K must file proper motions in court to secure an injunctive order of the court that blocks actual delivery of funds to the clerk because the clerk had used a non salable property of Circle K to secure the funds and the financial property must be forfeited to Circle K.
If the clerk can file before the expiration date I believe he will move for that action than let the ticket expire altogether.
If the ticket expires, Circle K can still sue the clerk for the full value of the finds that would have been awarded.
circle k managed to get a hold of the ticket quickly after finding out gawlitza had it, so it looks like he never even made it to the arizona lottery claim office. another employee must have told a higher level circle k manager what gawlitza was up to.
i'm not sure what legal argument circle k could use to sue gawlitza for money he doesn't have from a lottery ticket he didn't have possession of for very long. pain and suffering? lol. i guess corporations really are people too.
I must have missed the complete facts of this story . I did not know of that part I remain corrected. I thought that the clerk was still in possession of the ticket he purchased after the drawing.
Based on this new information then what seems to be the issue. Why can't Circle K submit the ticket for fulfillment?
"Is it even possible that the judge has the authority to ..."
What does "authority" mean? Even a town justice has extremely broad authority until a higher court (or the state board of judicial conduct) steps in. The judge can certainly order the lottery to extend the claim period but the lottery can appeal and potentially have a higher court allow them to follow their usual rules almost as soon as the ink is dry on the lower court's order. I doubt the lottery has the ability to extend the claim period on their own, but if a judge ordered them to perhaps they'd be fine with that and not bother to appeal. Of course, as some of us said previously, a better solution is to process the claim and hold the money until the (last) court decides who gets it rather than screw around with the lottery's normal rules.
"in some states, only actual people can claim "
Have you forgotten that corporations are people? I believe I've seen something at some time about some states saying only "natural people" can claim prizes, but that would mean a retailer could never cash in an unsold ticket. I'm not sure that retailers would agree to take a loss every time they can't sell a ticket a customer refuses, so at the very least perhaps the retailer's contract allows them to cash unsold tickets if some provision of the normal rules would prohibit it.
"I wonder if the customer could still have a claim to the Jackpot. "
The chance of that is zero, followed by a decimal point and quite a few more zeros. The customer had the chance to buy it and declined. They could certainly have come back at any time before the drawing and bought it (as long as it hadn't been sold to somebody else), but that chance disappeared when the drawing started.
"The ticket was available and he paid for it. "
Common sense says the ticket was not available, because nobody with a lick of sense would sell a winning ticket for such an extremely small portion of its value and you can't buy something that's not for sale. And no, taking it and leaving money behind doesn't change that.
"The store could have paid for it same day why didn't they? "
Retailers always pay for every ticket that comes out of their terminal unless the ticket is canceled (if that's even possible, which it isn't for MM or PB tickets). Even if the original customer had chosen to buy the ticket it would have belonged to Circle K until the customer paid them for it.
"I don't know what Arizona policy says .."
It's not Arizona policy that matters. AZ issued the ticket, and they reported it as a jackpot winner because they consider it a valid ticket. It's a simple ownership dispute between the ex-manager and Circle K, and Circle K's extremely good arguments are that the supposed sale was invalid because employees (whether on the clock or not) can't buy tickets where they work and Circle K never made the ticket available for sale after the drawing was held while Circle K still owned it.
"the judge might decide that neither the clerk nor circle k are entitled to the prize and the money goes back to the arizona lottery as an unclaimed prize. i'd actually put money on that. "
That might be 1000 times more likely than the original customer gaining ownership but there are still going to be a lot of zeros to the right of the decimal point. As above, the lottery considers it a valid ticket so the judge can't issue a ruling (that won't be overturned) that an ownership dispute invalidates the ticket. The legal question is who owns it, not whether or not it's a valid ticket.
"i'm not sure what legal argument circle k could use to sue gawlitza for money he doesn't have "
Their very obvious argument would be that the clerk deprived them of the ticket's value, which they were entitled to. People sue all the time without a reasonable expectation that the plaintiff has the money to pay the full amount being sued for.
Are you a spokesperson for Circle K? Sounds like you are...
There is an update to this story, the court has granted a 180 day suspension on the prize expiration date.
They are also tracking the actual buyer of the ticket who only got some and left the others.
It's getting interesting.
Oh shoot! That's why I asked about the original customer.(Thanks Tony Numbers for answering my question).
So they are going to back and find whoever purchased them, wow. That customer is going to flip after finding out he/she left a winning ticket of that size behind and is going to get a lawyer too lol
180 days to wrap this up, someone is getting that money!