The same malfunction, to the penny happened in Colorado. Circumstantial? Coincidence? Intellecutal property glitch? Programming error? Mechanism design flaw? 

The same malfunction, to the penny happened in Colorado. Circumstantial? Coincidence?

There could be several reasons that would provide such motivation. Whatever it may be there has to be a reason that outweighs public exposure. Public exposure must in some way expose them to losing something of value that to them is of greater value than $16.5 million. In the case of the current Iowa lottery ticket holder I of course have no idea what that would be so by today’s blog I do not wish to cast any dispersions upon that person or persons. But many people are asking themselves how anyone could give up this large amount of money; what motivates them? So I thought it would be fun to day to venture into lottery cases where there has been more downside than upside.

Freedom – Remember the police sting in the City of Chicago that occurred in the early 2000’s? They did it again in September 2011. The Chicago Police Department ran a sting where they promised $500 gift coupons, plasma televisions and video games that they had supposedly won. Or course each prize winner had an outstanding warrant and was immediately arrested after identifying themselves as the supposed winner. Prize giveaway turns out to be a bust, Ronnie Reese, Chicago Tribune. Over 100 “winners” were arrested. In the case of Lotto winnings there could be a similar motivation not to step forward.

Asset Disclosure – There are many situations requiring a person to completely disclose their assets and a winning lottery ticket would be considered in most situations a valuable asset; especially one worth over $10 million. Let's look at two of those situations. 

Bankruptcy - We are in a terrible economy and many people have filed for bankruptcy. When you file for bankruptcy protection from your creditors you are required to disclose all your assets and turn most of them over to the control of the trustee. If you don’t make a full disclosure, if it appears you are hiding some of your valuable assets it’s a crime and your bankruptcy petition can be dismissed. We recently had several news stories about an alleged dismissal here in Iowa. Developer Kline appeals bankruptcy dismissal and Business Record: Kline Bankruptcy Dismissed, KCCI. This type of factual situation would provide motivation to not step into the limelight.

Divorce - Probably one of the most well known cases comes to us from California. This case started as a quick divorce and ended several years later with the winning wife losing the entire winnings to her then ex-husband. Ex-Wife Loses Big in This Game of Chance, Ann O’Neill, Los Angeles Times describes a $1.3 million winner who lost it all to her now ex-husband. If a person had filed for divorce and had not disclosed they had the winning lottery ticket there would be motivation to not step forward, because there would be no benefit, assuming your ex sees you and investigates. In California, like many states, if you hide assets in a divorce you lose the entire asset your spouse.

Already rich enough – The saying goes you can’t be too good looking, be too thin or have too much money. But to some people money isn’t everything and they value privacy more than public recognition. This is what I refer to as ‘Who is Chuck Feeney?’

Mental Health Condition – Agoraphobia is a condition defined as having a morbid fear of having a panic attack and it is triggered, inter alia, by uncontrolled situations. Those who suffer from this condition avoid public and/or unfamiliar places.

CONCLUSION

As you can see there are numerous reasons a person might be motivated to forego what appears to be a winning situation; which when laid bare turns a winner into a loser. So before we can make assumptions about what’s going on in Iowa, we first have to know the facts about how they came into possession of what is a validated ticket. 

Yesterday’s post was about the Iowa Lottery’s $16.5 million winning ticket where the actual purchaser of the ticket appears not to want to be identified. Yesterday in The Attorney-Client Privilege – When silence is not so golden I explored the factual issues of whether the Iowa Lottery would honor paying the winning Lotto ticket if the person or persons behind the trust did not come forward and explain how they came into possession of the ticket. Apparently the Lottery Commission, Iowa’s Attorney Generals and the Iowa Department of Criminal Investigation knocked heads all day yesterday and last night announced the beneficiaries of the Hexam Investment Trust have until this Friday to step forward from out behind the curtain, to identify themselves and explain how they came into possession of the ticket or else forego the winnings. It’s time to do or die. 

Read Iowa Lottery says Friday is deadline for Lotto winner to come forward.

Lottery: All who had mystery $16.5M ticket must be interviewed

Point: Will the Attorney Client Privilege Void the Winning Iowa Lottery Ticket?

This is really turning into a good story, one that has plenty of intrigue to it. As lawyers we sometimes get thrust into the middle of controversy and because of the attorney-client privilege are bound to remain silent. I’ve seldom played the lottery, because I value my privacy more than I do money. As a lawyer I’ve even considered what steps I’d advise clients to take if they ever won big. The underlying theme being how to remain a private person who wins and can still know who his friends are and who is just being friendly.

Counter Point: Must the Lottery Winner be identified? Following the trail, video.

The $16.5 million Iowa Lottery story took another twist and turn this past week as more information is becoming known about the man who signed the ticket and had it delivered by FedEx to attorneys in Iowa who then turned in the ticket to the Iowa Lottery HQ. According to the Des Moines Register the ticket signer is a lawyer by the name of Crawford Shaw. The reported story is “Trustee in jackpot case is defendant in Delaware lawsuit” published on January 19, 2011 by Daniel P. Finney. The facts as set forth by the Des Moines Register include that Shaw, who is an attorney out of New York, represents Hexam Investment Trust, the alleged winner. But of course a trust is a fictious person and can’t walk into a convenience store in Iowa and buy a ticket. So who is the human that did? And this seems to be the question of the day?

Bloomberg Businessweek published a story on January 12, 2012 linking Extensions Inc (EXTI: OTC US) with one Crawford Shaw, Esq. His background is described in detail. Other companies include Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc. (IEAM: OTC US, Crawford Shaw, Esq. shown as a consultant), Advanced Bio/Chem. Inc., Crown Medical Systems, Inc. (out of Scottsdale, Arizona) (OTCBB:CWME), Paper Free Medical Solutions (PFMS: OTC US), EZ Lease’s CEO and Editor of A Lawyers Guide to International Business Transactions (WorldCat lists the book co-written with Walter Sterling Surrey, Joint Committee on Continued Legal Education, 1963; there are other publications Mr. Shaw has authored.).

Yale College Class of 1957 link does display two photographs of a Crawford Shaw on page 12.

Probably the most interesting position noted by Attorney Shaw is the one he lists as having served as the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Kennedy Administration. C. Douglas Dillion served at U.S. Secretary of the Treasury from January 21, 1961 to November 22, 1963 under Kennedy; Dillion then served until April 1, 1965 Under President Johnson. Attorney Shaw is a graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School. He’s an interesting guy, a lawyer having no obvious connection to Iowa that I can find.

Will the Real Iowa Lottery Winner Please Step Forward?

This may be the first time the Iowa Lottery Commission is forced to decide if a person can be compelled to disclose details of how they acquired the ticket. In this instance the person on the hot seat is an attorney with a legal privilege that allows him to do only what his client permits. The attorney-client privilege is one as old as the law. To quote the General Counsel of Dartmouth, “Since the days of Elizabethan England, the Attorney-Client privilege has preserved the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their clients. The privilege is based on several closely-related policy considerations:

• clients should be encouraged to be completely truthful with their attorneys, so that the attorney's legal advice can be based on all relevant facts;
• clients will be reluctant to seek an attorney's advice if they fear that their communications will be revealed to others; and
• by encouraging clients' communications with their attorneys, the privilege promotes voluntary compliance with laws and regulations.”

Unless Attorney Shaw’s client gives him permission he can not disclose the identity of this client or how they acquired the winning ticket. That places the Iowa Lottery officials in a quandary.

The lottery will be forced to decide whether they can void the ticket on the assumption the ticket is void for any one of its statutory reasons (IAC Chapter 11, Prizes, stolen, lost or acquired by fraud.), based solely on the failure to disclose intimate details about acquisition. Does the law allow the Iowa Lottery to say “no joy” and to assume there is fraud, theft or some other legitimate reason to refuse payment?

Here is a quote from The Gazette.

“Shaw, 76, of Bedford, N.Y., met Tuesday with Iowa Lottery officials, but would not say who bought the ticket or who the winner is, Spokeswoman Mary Neubauer said. Lottery officials won’t release the cash until they have that information.” See the story in The Republic, dated January 19, 2012.

As judges in Iowa are fond of saying to me, “This isn’t about fairness, it’s about justice; applying the facts to the law.”

Clash of the Titans: The Attorney-Client Privilege Collides with the Iowa Lottery

As I said earlier this is going to get interesting and I suspect the Iowa Attorney General’s Office may be litigating this for years to come, but then again, maybe not. This lawsuit may be what the Iowa Lottery is setting up. A civil lawsuit would allow the Lottery the opportunity to question the winner and those associated with Hexum under oath. Either that or they will have to forego the claim. It’s a multimillion dollar choice. But Hexum may be coming up with its own strategy. What if Hexum sold or otherwise assigned the ticket to an unrelated and disinterested person? Rule 531-11.5 sets out rules for valid assignments and the right to control receipt of a lottery prize is substantially limited. (See previous link.) But what if done in a legally recognized manner, and they having purchased this chose or bearer instrument then pursued the lawsuit on their own behalf saying I bought the ticket from Attorney Shaw. What then? It’s a dead end for the Iowa Lottery and they are then forced to make the same exact decision in the blind.

Until the winning ticket is signed it’s considered a bearer instrument; after being signed the person signing the ticket is thereafter considered the “owner”. So at this point is the owner Hexum or Shaw?

The prize shall be paid within a reasonable time after a claim is verified by the lottery and a winner is determined. I.A.C.531-11.7 Time of prize payment. What was signed on the winning ticket? Whose name appears there? From the KCCI video it appears the written and printed words on the back of the ticket are “Hexam Investments, Trustee, Crawford Shaw, Trustee”.

There are really three factual issues immediately in play here.

1. Can the Iowa Lottery refuse to pay the money if the person who bought the ticket is not identified?
2. Can the Iowa Lottery refuse to pay, if the human winners are not identified? (Who is the beneficiary of the Hexam Investments Trust?)
3. Does the Lottery have the right to know how the person who turned the ticket in for validation received it?

Claiming prizes, IAC 531-11.1(99G)

Agency Listing  |  Lottery Authority, Iowa [531]

Chapter Listing  |  Chapter 11 PRIZES

I’m curious as to what rule allows the Lottery to withhold the winnings when a presenter refuses or can’t discuss how he acquired the ticket?

I believe the Iowa Lottery rules are silent on this issue in that I see nothing in the rules requiring anyone to open up about the details of how they acquired the ticket. After all, what if the lotter winner died shortly after turning in the ticket, but before making any statements? What then?

Release the video recording of the person buying the ticket.

The Iowa Lottery should immediately release the video they have showing the person, the human, buying the winning ticket.

Who must prove the legal reasons why a ticket is considered invalid?

Is the burden on the Iowa Lottery to prove the ticket is invalid for one of the statutory reasons? I.A.C., 531-11.11(99G) Stolen or lost ticket. Curiosity aside where is the rule that precludes validation when a person won’t disclose how they acquired the ticket? The Iowa Lottery seems to be digging further for background information they allege may have some bearing on the validation process. It's pretty obvious they are stalling for time because something on the video recording is bothering them. What nationality is the person buying the ticket? Why won't that person come forward? What is the Iowa Lottery trying to prove? What in all the hundreds of claims made for the winnings or on the videotape is raising a red flag?

Lottery: Multiple People Claim Winning Ticket Was Stolen, November 3, 2011, KCCI-Channel 8

Did anyone think to process the ticket for fingerprints?

I have to wonder if the Iowa DCI processed the ticket for fingerprints. I see in the video from KCCI multiple people were handling the ticket as if it were some unimportant piece of evidence. It reminded me of a rugby match at a murder scene. Have they all unknowingly participated in the destruction of evidence? Could fingerprints have been identified and processed through the FBI database?

This ticket was validated at 2:10 pm with a deadline of 4:00 pm. The ticket holder was down to the 364^th day when it was turned in to Lottery headquarters. It's very odd that a person would sit back while the investment degraded by the millions. The underlying questions are whether the ticket was acquired in a legitimate manner. That leads Lottery HQ to want to ask questions about how Mr. Shaw acquired it. He can't tell them without his client giving him the go-ahead. That's not happening. There is a video recording of a person buying the ticket with the numbers 3-12-16-26-23 and Hot Ball 11 at the convenience store along I-80 and I-35 in Des Moines. Will the person who eventually steps forward as the 'winner' fit the description of the person shown in the video recording?

And what about the child support and back taxes issues? Those have yet to be determined.  

No matter what the outcome this is going to get more interesting as the cold days of winter mosey along towards the spring planting.

RESOURCES

• See, Mystery $18.3m lotto claim just beats deadline, Ryan Foley out of New Zealand.
• Crawford Shaw, Attorney at Law website
• John F. Kennedy, Presidential Library And Museum, Officials of the Kennedy Administration
• Wikipedia, United States Secretary of the Treasury
• US Department of the Treasury website
• Iowa Department of Revenue, Why are my name and social security number required to collect winnings? Link.
• Iowa’s Child Support Recovery Unit
• 10 Steps to Claim a Winning Lottery Ticket, Lombardi, January 20, 2012

You can’t win a lottery without turning in a ticket.

As much as you may want to think this is about fairness, it’s not; it’s about playing by the rules you agreed to when you bought a lottery ticket that is later picked as having the winning numbers.

Don’t fool yourself into thinking you won the lottery when you can’t produce the winning ticket. To win the lottery you have to do several things.

1. Be old enough to legally play the game.
2. Buy the winning ticket.
3. Buy the ticket during the time period when the game is active.
4. Possess the winning ticket. (Can be by gift or other legitimate means. Just not stolen.)
5. Sign the winning ticket.
6. Turn the ticket in by the deadline for validation.
7. Actually turn the ticket into the Iowa lottery.
8. Have the ticket be validated by the lottery’s machinery.
9. Don’t engage in fraud or theft to possess the winning ticket.

    10.  Don’t wait to turn in the winning ticket if the economy is in down market because the value of the winning prize will probably decline.

Recently, the Iowa Lottery held a drawing named Hot Lotto that was sold at a Des Moines convenience store with the winning number being drawn on December 29, 2010. That meant the winning number had to be turned in on or before December 29, 2011. It was, but barely. It was turned in with about two hours to spare. Two lawyers representing a trust showed up to turn in the signed ticket and to have the ticket validated. That raised eyebrows, but that wasn't what caught my attention. During the year of waiting, many people came forward convinced they had won. 

Above you have the 9 basic requirements (#10 is only a suggestion) to take that winning ticket and turn it into cold hard cash. The issues I researched had to do with lost, stolen or mangled lottery tickets or tickets mishandled by the salesclerk at the convenience store where the ticket was turned in to see if it was a winner. In each instance no matter what the cause you have to have the winning ticket and do what’s listed above or else you can’t win. You can buy the winning ticket, someone can steal it from you, the clerk can mishandle it, you can have in your possession a copy of the winning ticket and unless you turn in a signed ticket that validates by the lottery’s electronic terminals you won’t be declared the winner.

My research focused on missing, lost, stolen or voided tickets. For the lawyers reading this I’ll give you the winning ticket to your research by referring you to 48 A.L.R.6^th 243, Lotteries – Actions Against State, specifically subsection 19, Sal of Ticket – Missing, lost, stolen, or void ticket – Recovery not allowed. Please don’t expect me to follow strict BlueBook citation guidelines, after all this is a blog and earns me little or nothing.

I will say this is an exciting area to research because in my case (a winner, but for one wrong assumption) it could have resulted in a windfall to my client of $16.5 million. If that’s not motivation to plug away, I don’t know what would be.

• See also Iowa Administrative Code 531-11.1(4) An original ticket or share must be presented before payment of any prize will occur. No reproduction, facsimile or copies of any kind will be allowed.
• I.A.C., Chapter 11 Prizes. 531-11.1(99G) Claiming Prizes - 11.4 makes the lottery ticket a “bearer instrument” and section 11.11 makes void tickets that are stolen or lost tickets. 99.G.9(3) along with 21(2). Although I find the “lost ticket” concept not congruent with the idea of a bearer instrument and rather difficult to prove.
• CJS Lotteries sections 14-18.
• Keynote: Lotteries section 10.

A Mislaid Winning Lottery Ticket and the One-Year-Validation Period – In Madara vs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 323 A.2d 401 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1974) William Madara on June 14, 1972 purchased for $0.50 what turned out to be the winning lottery ticket. The winning jackpot totaled $1,000,000 and was drawn on June 14, 1972. Shortly after he bought the ticket the 1972 Atlantic hurricane season brought Hurricane Agnes to his doorstep and his family’s escaping the resulting flooding caused him to mislay the wallet containing… you guessed it, the winning million dollar lottery ticket. He didn’t find the wallet and turn in the winning ticket until June 16, 1973, what the Court describes as one day late. But rules are rules in the game of the lottery and the one-year validation period is in place for a pretty good reason. At some point unclaimed prize money needs to be reinvested into other games to increase participation and to encourage winners to come forward to claim their prize. Although sympathetic the Pennsylvania court ruled against Mr. Madara and in favor of the lottery commission. There is a dissent, but like all lawyers who lose the case but are awarded a dissenting opinion, you can’t spend what dissenting opinions provide.

Ticket Inadvertently Destroyed - Karafa vs New Jersey State Lottery – 324 A.2d 97 (New Jersey, 1974) – Here we have John Karafa as plaintiff who the facts in the opinion state claimed to be the June 24, 1971 $50,000 winner. He to was unable to produce the winning ticket. What happened in this case is a lesson in why you turn in the winning ticket a.s.a.p. No ifs, ands or buts about it. There was little question that Mr. Karafa had purchased the winning ticket. There were six or seven independent witnesses that saw the winning ticket when the waitress processed the ticket and announced it was the winning ticket. Where the rub came in was when Karafa’s mother inadvertently threw out the ticket with some old tickets; preventing Mr. Karafa from being able to sign the ticket, turn it in and have it authenticated. Generally it’s a well-recognized rule of law that the accidental or unintentional loss or destruction of a written instrument does not change or impair the obligation of the parties thereto. And a lottery ticket is a bearer instrument similar to a bearer bond. But unlike a bearer bond a lottery ticket is sold as a game with its own set of rules that all participants agree to follow when they purchase the chance to play the game. In this instance the Court sided with the lottery commission and put the winner’s mother in the penalty box for an extra long period of time.

And in Palese vs Delaware State Lottery Office, 2006 WL 1875915(Del.Ch.), No. Civ.A. 1546-N the Court of Chancery of Delaware dismissed the complaint by a patron who sued after presenting the pay slip following his lottery ticket being inadvertently destroyed in the laundry finding the State is not unjustly enriched. After all you agreed to the rules when you purchased the ticket.

See also Brown vs Calif. State Lottery Comm’n., 232 Cal. App. 3d 1335, 284 Cal. Rptr. 108 (1991); Ramirez vs Bureau of State Lottery, 186 Mich. App. 275, 282, 463 N.W.2d 245 (1990), rev. denied 439 Mich. App. 861, 475 N.W.2d 819 (1991)

Ticket Mislaid, Destroyed and Unable to be Presented - In Fowles vs State of Kansas, 867 P.2d 357 (Kan. 1994) the winner’s daughter was a clerk in the convenience store where the ticket was purchased and then lost after she laid it on the counter where it mysteriously disappeared. The buyer had asked his daughter to take the ticket to work with her to determine if it was a winner. She did determine it was a winner and then placed it on the counter where it disappeared. The winning ticket was worth $117,037. In this case the buyer lost because he could not present the winning ticket, could not sign the ticket and it therefore could not be validated. 

The Draw Break Problem - Granton vs Washington State Lottery Commission, 143 Wash. App. 225, 177 P.3d 745, 48 A.L.R.6^th 659. This is sort of a weird set of facts; the kind of facts that led to the McDonald’s spilled coffee industry wide marketing campaign. In this case Mr. Granton is described in the opinion as not having bought a ticket, although he attempted to buy a ticket with the winning numbers. The “pay slip” he filled out did have the winning numbers and the clerk prior to the drawing did try to accept his pay slip by processing it through the automated ticket terminal. The pay slip was rejected because that particular game was in what they call a “draw break” and the machine refused his game entry. A draw break is a period of time before games become active where the lottery is distributing tickets and is an administrative period where although being advertised, the game is yet to be opened for betting. Finding for the Commission the Court notes Granton did not purchase a ticket and was not entitled to a jackpot prize. The Court was somewhat ticked off and suggested to the Commission it could ask for fees and investigative costs using the phrase “patently meritless claims.”

Tickets Mishandled or Improperly Processed - Convenience Store Malpractice – Yes there is such a fact pattern although I believe the cause of action would be something else that sounds very boring. I read several cases where the convenience store clerks failed to follow the lottery commission rules with registering the purchased tickets; these are pre-electronic registration cases. But know that even obvious mistakes in processing the tickets by clerks won’t revive an otherwise winning ticket. The language on the reverse side of the lottery ticket places loss responsibility on the person playing, not the convenience store, which absolves the store of its negligence or malpractice. One store, a liquor store that sold lottery tickets transposed the numbers when the owner handwrote the numbers on a piece of paper that he later posted on the glass door. A patron with the winning ticket read the transposed numbers, and then thinking he’d lost threw away his ticket. When the sequence of the numbers was later corrected he sued the liquor store and lost.

I sense from reading these cases that judges don’t like lottery litigation. It’s almost like the Court believes this is a game and not worth wasting the Court’s precisions resources deciding who wins or who loses. To some extent I understand and would caution those taking on these clients to be aware you could be sanctioned if your case is deemed frivolous. And without a winning ticket you’re walking a fine line between legitimate and frivolous. At the very least you’d better have a copy of the winning ticket to present a claim. See Granton vs Washington State Lottery Commission, 143 Wash. App. 225, 177 P.3d 745, 48 A.L.R.6^th 659.

See also Fowles vs State of Kansas, 867 P.2d 357 (Kan. 1994) noted above. Bottom line is the ticket cannot be validated where there is no ticket to turn in.

Stolen Tickets or Tickets Obtained by Fraud - Lottery tickets are a hybrid of bearer bonds but with many more rules. That ticket is a written contract to participate in a game of chance. As a patron who is playing the lottery you should be protecting your investment in this game of chance. Make a copy of your ticket; although the copy will not validate so don’t expect having a copy to carry the water to a huge pay day. What it can do is become evidence if someone steals your ticket. While proving the ticket is stolen will not help your bank account, stolen tickets are automatically void, it will keep the thieves from profiting on your investment, although I use that term loosely. Don’t’ leave your ticket sitting on the dashboard of your car or in your pants pocket where it can be tossed in the dirty laundry and put through the wash cycle. Have a pouch where you store all tickets, a pouch similar to one stores use to make bank deposits. After all if that $1 can be turned into $16.5 million that’s over sixteen million reasons why you should secure your purchase and to protect the integrity of the ticket.

Mangled Tickets – Tickets that will not pass through the automated validation machine will not properly validate and so mangled tickets (through the washing machine) that will not validate are not valid winners. You can own the winning ticket, have it in your hand, everyone can look at it and say yes you have the winning ticket, but if the machine will not validate it you get your money back but not the winning prize. There is a case where lottery officials did validate a mangled ticket. So mangled tickets if presented at the lottery commission HQ may see daylight.

Lottery Malpractice and Advertising Misrepresentation – The lottery can advertise the game incorrectly and you still don’t win on a misrepresentation argument. See La Bo J Partnership vs Louisiana Lottery Corp., 6 So.3d 191 (La. Ct. App. 1^st Cir. 2009, writ denied, 5 So.3d 168 (La. 2009). See also Triano vs. Division of State Lottery, (1997 N.J.) based on the Lottery Commission’s misleading advertising that induced playing but then failed to pay “winning tickets”.

Damages – What damages can you get for all of the above? A refund of the amount you paid when you purchased the ticket. That is a small claims court case. Hello Judge Judy. And in Thao vs Control Data Corp., 790 P2d 1239 (Wash. App. 1990) a lottery patron sued the convenience store for transcribing incorrect numbers on a breach of contract theory. In this case the court did not dismiss his case for any reason other than his case did not meet the jurisdictional monetary limit of the court. The Court's decision referred him to small claims court; noting his damages were limited to his cost of purchasing the ticket. See also Coleman vs State, 77 Mich. App 349, 258 N.W.2d 84 (1977)

How to Play the Lottery

1. Players should know the lottery commission will likely have video of the purchase transaction and when buying a ticket wear clothes that clearly show your facial features and wear clothes that can later be identified.
2. Secure all tickets you purchase in a money drop locked bag, similar to what stores use to make night deposits at the bank.
3. After purchasing your ticket immediately sign it.
4. Maintain a close watch on the drawing.
5. After the drawing is announced check your ticket to see if you’ve won.
6. If you win, immediately claim your prize at the lottery headquarters.
7. Do not allow the clerk to take the ticket out of your plain view.
8. Never hand an unsigned ticket to a convenience store clerk.
9. Take back all tickets that are said not to be winners and then review the numbers to confirm their non winning status.

     10.  Never place your lottery tickets in the pockets of clothes that will later be washed.

    11.  If you do the laundry in your house, check all pockets and if you find unsigned lottery tickets sign them and follow steps 1 through 10. After all this could be your lucky day.

*Thanks to Katrina Schaefer a 3L at the University of Iowa Law School for her assistance in researching the facts of this case.