Man brings his stepmum to court over the proceeds of a €3.38m Lotto win
A dispute between a stepmother and stepson over the proceeds of a €3.38m Lotto win has come before the High Court.
Mr David Walsh has brought proceedings against Mrs Mary Walsh claiming he is entitled to a one sixth share of the prize amounting to €564,000. Mrs Walsh rejects the claim, and says her stepson is not entitled to the money claimed.
The ticket was one of two winning tickets for a Lotto jackpot of approximately €6.7m drawn on Saturday, January 22nd, 2011.
The €12 ticket at the centre of the legal dispute was sold at Salmons Department Store, at Main Street Ballinasloe. The other winning ticket was sold in Caherciveen in Co Kerry.
The dispute was briefly mentioned before Mr Justice Paul Gilligan at the High Court on Thursday. The court heard Mr Walsh claims he was one of six people that signed the back of the winning ticket and is entitled to one sixth of the prize money.
In his action Mr Walsh of Knocknagreena, Ballinasloe, Co Galway seeks orders from the court including one declaring he is entitled to a sum of €564,000 from the Lotto prize money and Mrs Walsh received the winnings as trustee for her stepson.
He also seeks an order directing his stepmother to pay him the sum of €564,000. Mr Walsh, represented by Dervla Browne SC, further seeks various declarations including that Mrs Walsh and the estate of his late father Peter, who died in late 2011, holds the amount sought in trust for him.
Mrs Walsh, a business woman of Perssepark, Ballinasloe Co Galway denies the claims and is opposing the action.
Claire Bruton Bl for Mrs Walsh said it is her client's case that the winning ticket belonged to her and not her stepson.
Counsel said that following the win Mr Walsh was gifted his late father's family home, but her stepson is not entitled to the proceeds of the Lotto prize.
Mr Justice Gilligan fixed a date in November for the hearing of the dispute. The Judge also directed any pretrial motions, including the discovery of relevant materials in advance of the hearing, can be mentioned before the court in a month's time.
The Judge said he hoped that all pre-trial issues would be sorted out by then.
The parties were not present in court during the short hearing.