Lotto winner ordered to pay stepson a share of winnings to appeal decision, court hears
A WOMAN ordered to pay her stepson a share of a €3.3m Lotto win intends to appeal the case, the High Court heard on Monday.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys earlier this month made orders preventing Mary Walsh (66) from reducing her assets below €929,000.
On Monday, the judge was informed, in a statement sworn from Ms Walsh, that she only has total assets consisting of a house, car and a life insurance policy worth €670,000 including liquid assets of €6,991.61.
He also refused to grant an application from her for €1,050 per month living expenses and €4,000 per month to keep her business going, which she said was loss making and had total losses of €53,000.
She also wanted to cover her legal expenses so she could progress her appeal, and was involved in litigation with a third party, her lawyers argued.
The judge said it would be "unfair" on Mr Walsh if those payments were allowed out of the assets.
He also agreed with Mr Walsh's lawyers that Mrs Walsh's old age pension of €233 a week would cover her living expenses.
The judge previously ruled she must pay a one-sixth share of the win to her stepson David Walsh plus his legal costs.
Mr Walsh (52), of Knocknagreena, Ballinasloe in Co Galway sued Mrs Walsh from Perrsepark, Ballinasloe, arguing he was entitled to his share on the grounds his signature was among six that were written on the back of the winning ticket.
Mrs Walsh, who was married to David's late father, Peter Walsh, denied this and argued that the ticket was hers.
She claimed that David was offered and accepted her and her late husband's house in lieu of €200,000 from the win.
Mr Walsh, who claimed he was promised a share of the money by his late father, denied that.
The judge found against her and said she had lied on oath.
On Monday, lawyers for David Walsh said Mrs Walsh had only accounted for assets of €670,000 out of the €3.3m.
Lawyers for Mrs Walsh had opposed the application preventing her reducing her assets.
In her affidavit she expressed an intention to appeal the court's judgment. She also rejected claims she would dissipate her assets.
Her lawyers also argued she was not required to provide details at this stage to say where the Lotto money had gone.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Humphreys said he was satisfied to confirm the freezing orders and order that she disclose information in relation to where the money had gone.
The judge said more than €2m was unaccounted for. He was satisfied Mrs Walsh had done "a great deal of what a person would do if they wanted to dissipate assets."
Neither of the Walsh's were present in court.