2019 COA 92
Colo. Ct. App.2019Background
- In the November 23, 2005 Colorado Lotto drawing three tickets matched the winning combination for a $4.8 million jackpot; the Lottery Division certified the drawing and paid each winning ticket holder a one-third lump-sum share.
- Ten years later the Division learned two of the winning tickets were procured by a fraud scheme (Eddie and Tommy Tipton); those two tickets were later deemed invalid and subject to restitution agreements.
- Massihzadeh was the sole innocent winner who had accepted and kept his one-third payment (about $568,990 after taxes and lump-sum election) at the time the fraud was discovered.
- Massihzadeh sued the Colorado State Lottery Division seeking the remaining two-thirds of the jackpot (breach of contract), alleging he was entitled to the full prize once the other tickets were invalidated.
- The Division moved to dismiss, arguing section 44-40-113(4) discharges the Division from liability "upon the payment of any prize," and the district court granted dismissal; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether acceptance of a partial prize payment precludes the winner from later recovering the unpaid remainder under § 44-40-113(4). | Massihzadeh: acceptance of one-third was not a payment of the full "prize," so the statute does not bar recovery of the remaining two-thirds. | Division: statute discharges all liability "upon the payment of any prize"; Massihzadeh accepted a prize payment, so liability is discharged. | The court held acceptance of the one-third payment constituted payment of "any prize," discharging the Division from further liability; claim barred. |
| Whether § 44-40-113(4) applies only to third-party claimants and not to an actual winning ticket holder. | Massihzadeh: the statute addresses third-party claims and should not preclude his claim as the (only) legitimate winner. | Division: statute language is broad and applies to payments to winners as well as third-party claim procedures. | The court held the statute unambiguously applies to payments to a prizewinner; it is not limited to third parties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Snyder Oil Co. v. Embree, 862 P.2d 259 (Colo. 1993) (if statutory language is clear, no further interpretation is required)
- Stamp v. Vail Corp., 172 P.3d 437 (Colo. 2007) (construction of statutory words, including scope of terms like "any")
- Stoesz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 410 P.3d 583 (Colo. App. 2015) (use of dictionary definitions when a statute does not define a term)