To FYI:

Reply #4

CASH Only — Wed, 05 Jun 2002 11:52:25 GMT

FJA: The lawsuit I was referring to was NOT against the city of Euclid. It was about the Ohio Lottery paying lump-sum winners in Ohio 6/49 less than the the amount of cash that would have been used to purchase the annuity, had the winner chosen the annual payments.

Reply #3

fja — Wed, 05 Jun 2002 11:03:42 GMT

The suit was based on city withholding tax in Euclid, Ohio. At the time the city tax did not cover lottery winnings so the court made the city pay back over $100,000 that they had taken from the winner.

Reply #2

CASH Only — Wed, 05 Jun 2002 00:13:29 GMT

I don't remember the details; it had to have been at least three years ago. I know the suit was NOT because the winner expected to receive X million in cash because the (annuity) advertised amount was X million, or because of state and federal withholding from the check.

Reply #1

RJOh — Tue, 04 Jun 2002 19:53:15 GMT

What Cash only says may be true, but you can't prove it by me. I never heard of the law-suit he refers to, but the cash option for Ohio649p jackpot is smaller than the one for MagaMillion jackpot of the same size as posted on the lottery website.RJOh

To FYI:

CASH Only — Mon, 03 Jun 2002 17:23:01 GMT

The 30-year annuity in Ohio vs the 26-year annuity for MM is _NOT_ the big reason why the percentage of the cash value of the annuity is smaller for Ohio Lotto than for MM. The Ohio Lottery uses two different interest rates to compute the cash value of the advertised annuity. The last time I checked, the interest rate for computing the cash value of the annuity is 1.5 points lower than the interest rate of the cash value PAID to winners taking the lump sum. This means that the cash value paid to... [ More ]