Post: #1

"Moral of story: It pays to be honest from the beginning," said Marc Lerner, attorney for the 65-year-old jilted husband.

Lerner said tears rolled from his client's eyes when Denner announced his ruling in court. For her part, Denise Rossi, 49, said she was stunned and is contemplating her next legal move.

"Yes, there will be an appeal," said her attorney, Connolly K. Oyler of Santa Monica. He called the judge's ruling "very punitive."

But Thomas Rossi's lawyers say they are hearing it described another way: karma.

"Maybe people will think twice about hiding assets during a dissolution," said Lerner, of Brentwood.

Thomas Rossi could not be reached for comment Tuesday, but he weaves a compelling tale in his court papers. Before their divorce--and the fateful Lotto windfall--the Rossis were "a couple of homebodies" from the Westside who did everything together, he said.

"We shared the same bathroom, and we even shared the same electric toothbrush," he said in court papers.

Denise, however, tells a different story in her filings and an interview Tuesday. She said she had been unhappy for many years and was looking for a way out. He was always broke, and she was always working, she said.

Her chance came when she and five co-workers in a now-defunct clothing design firm pooled resources to play the lottery and hit the jackpot, sharing $6.6 million, she said.

"I'd wanted to get out of this relationship for years," she said in a telephone interview. She credits luck for her lottery windfall and blames her ignorance of the law for her failure to disclose the winnings.

Rest of the story at http://articles.latimes.com/1999/nov/17/news/mn-34537

Gets even more scandalous if you can believe it.

Post: #2

Feel good story of the century!

Post: #3

Happened in 1999 wondered what the final decision was after appeal.

Post: #4

Nice - found out thru a misdirected piece of junk mail.

Judge got pissed at two things: first she concealed the winnings, then she had the unmitigated gall to lie to the court about where she got the ticket.

That was 1999. I suspect if it were a female judge nowadays, the result would be a bit different. There's no way he would get everything, even though he deserves it.

Post: #5

Quote:Woman hid her Lotto win from husband and quickly divorced him. Judge says she must let him have all $1.3 million.

Post: #6

This was back in 1999. Funny how a woman's loyalty rests on coin and/or status. Though, I am sure we are not the least surprised.

I am sure now bitches would be like: U GOOOOOOOO GUUUUURLLLLLLLLLL!

Post: #7

Any pics updates on this?

Post: #8

How does being a couple of homebodies, doing everything together, and sharing a bathroom and a toothbrush
...contradict...
Them being broke, wife working, wife being unhappy for many years and looking for a way out.

Legally?

Edit: Looks like he won the case...good lord this story is over a decade old.

http://www.metnews.com/articles/ross0625.htm

Quote:A woman who kept $1.3 million in lottery winnings secret from her estranged husband to avoid having to give him half in their divorce settlement will now have to turn over the whole pot to him, this district’s Court of Appeal ruled Friday.
Denise Rossi must give up her entire lottery share under a Family Code statute that penalizes spouses for falsifying data about their property.
In upholding an order by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Richard E. Denner, the appeals panel rejected Rossi’s assertion that her winnings were actually a gift of separate property from her co-worker, who headed a lottery pool that hit the jackpot in December 1996.
Rossi, also known as Denise De Rossi, claimed she paid $5 a week into the pool along with other workplace colleagues, but that she pulled out just before her group won $6.68 million. Instead of being entitled to a community property cut of the pot, she said, she really was given only a separate property gift by her co-workers who had so recently played the lottery with her.
Justice Norman Epstein of Div. Four agreed with Denner that the argument was not credible. He noted that Rossi filed for divorce less than a month after her group won the lottery, she consulted with the state lottery commission on how she could keep her husband from getting his hands on the prize, she used her mother’s address for annual checks and other correspondence from lottery officials so her husband wouldn’t know about it, and she never did tell her husband about her jackpot.
He found out about it a year and a half later when a letter was sent in her name to his address, asking if she was interested in a lump-sum buy-out of her lottery winnings.
“The record supports the family court’s conclusion that Denise intentionally concealed the lottery winnings and that they were community property,” Epstein said.
Under those circumstances, he said, Thomas Rossi was entitled to 100 percent of the lottery winnings under Family Code Sec. 1101(h).
The justice called the severe sanction of that statute important to promote full disclosure in divorce proceedings, which is in turn essential to the trial court to determine the proper division of property and the correct support awards.
The appeals court also rejected Denise Rossi’s claim that her ex-husband’s own unclean hands overcame the statutory penalty. She argued that her former spouse battered her emotionally and physically and that he also kept some assets hidden from the court. But Epstein said the cases she cited to support her contention were off point.
The claim that the award should be blocked because it would just be used to pay Thomas Rossi’s attorney fees was also rejected. The Superior Court could have awarded the ex-husband attorney fees on top of the award, but in its discretion decided not to, Epstein said.
He was joined by Presiding Justice Charles Vogel and Justice J. Gary Hastings.
The case is Rossi v. Rossi, B141041.

Post: #9

(04-08-2015 10:38 AM)el mechanico Wrote:  Any pics updates on this?

I'm afraid to look. This was too good to be true and I'm afraid an appeals court already ruined my fantasy.

Post: #10

(04-08-2015 10:38 AM)heavy Wrote:  How does being a couple of homebodies, doing everything together, and sharing a bathroom and a toothbrush
...contradict...
Them being broke, wife working, wife being unhappy for many years and looking for a way out.

Legally?

Edit: Looks like he won the case...good lord this story is over a decade old.

http://www.metnews.com/articles/ross0625.htm

Quote:A woman who kept $1.3 million in lottery winnings secret from her estranged husband to avoid having to give him half in their divorce settlement will now have to turn over the whole pot to him, this district’s Court of Appeal ruled Friday.
Denise Rossi must give up her entire lottery share under a Family Code statute that penalizes spouses for falsifying data about their property.
In upholding an order by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Richard E. Denner, the appeals panel rejected Rossi’s assertion that her winnings were actually a gift of separate property from her co-worker, who headed a lottery pool that hit the jackpot in December 1996.
Rossi, also known as Denise De Rossi, claimed she paid $5 a week into the pool along with other workplace colleagues, but that she pulled out just before her group won $6.68 million. Instead of being entitled to a community property cut of the pot, she said, she really was given only a separate property gift by her co-workers who had so recently played the lottery with her.
Justice Norman Epstein of Div. Four agreed with Denner that the argument was not credible. He noted that Rossi filed for divorce less than a month after her group won the lottery, she consulted with the state lottery commission on how she could keep her husband from getting his hands on the prize, she used her mother’s address for annual checks and other correspondence from lottery officials so her husband wouldn’t know about it, and she never did tell her husband about her jackpot.
He found out about it a year and a half later when a letter was sent in her name to his address, asking if she was interested in a lump-sum buy-out of her lottery winnings.
“The record supports the family court’s conclusion that Denise intentionally concealed the lottery winnings and that they were community property,” Epstein said.
Under those circumstances, he said, Thomas Rossi was entitled to 100 percent of the lottery winnings under Family Code Sec. 1101(h).
The justice called the severe sanction of that statute important to promote full disclosure in divorce proceedings, which is in turn essential to the trial court to determine the proper division of property and the correct support awards.
The appeals court also rejected Denise Rossi’s claim that her ex-husband’s own unclean hands overcame the statutory penalty. She argued that her former spouse battered her emotionally and physically and that he also kept some assets hidden from the court. But Epstein said the cases she cited to support her contention were off point.
The claim that the award should be blocked because it would just be used to pay Thomas Rossi’s attorney fees was also rejected. The Superior Court could have awarded the ex-husband attorney fees on top of the award, but in its discretion decided not to, Epstein said.
He was joined by Presiding Justice Charles Vogel and Justice J. Gary Hastings.
The case is Rossi v. Rossi, B141041.

Tuth, Roosh, other mods, I messed up my OP copy paste, could anyone insert this post instead? Much better job.

Post: #11

As we can see from Heavy's post, the man kept everything as the appeals also sided with the man. Dumb bitch got what was coming to her.

Post: #12

(04-08-2015 11:22 AM)Samseau Wrote:  As we can see from Heavy's post, the man kept everything as the appeals also sided with the man. Dumb bitch got what was coming to her.

I prefer the word cunt in place of bitch but other than that 100% agree Samseau!

Post: #13

Justice always warms my cold icy heart.

Post: #14

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-a...72229.html

Quote:Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.
IN RE: MARRIAGE OF Denise and Thomas ROSSI. Denise Rossi, Appellant, v. Thomas Rossi, Respondent.

No. B141041.
Decided: June 22, 2001
 Michael J. Berger, Beverly Hills, for Appellant. Claudia Ribet;  Phillips, Lerner & Lauzon and Marc Lerner, Los Angeles, for Respondent.
Denise Rossi appeals from a postjudgment order in this dissolution case, awarding all the lottery winnings concealed by Denise  during the dissolution proceedings to her ex-husband, Thomas Rossi.1  Her argument is two-fold:  that Thomas had unclean hands and therefore was not entitled to a share of the lottery prize, and that her conduct did not meet the statutory definition for the penalty because she believed the prize to be her separate property.

We conclude that the family court's findings that Denise intentionally concealed the lottery winnings from Thomas and that her conduct constituted fraud within the meaning of Civil Code section 3294 are supported by substantial evidence and that there was no abuse of the court's discretion. . . . .

Denise argues she committed no fraud because the statutory definition of that term “denotes conduct much more malicious and vile in nature than the failure of a physically and emotionally abused woman to disclose an asset to her husband, whose gambling and money mismanagement problems detrimentally affected her life and caused her to file for bankruptcy and caused him to threaten to kill her.   In not disclosing what Denise Rossi believed was her separate property, Denise Rossi did not intend to deprive Respondent of an asset that he was entitled to because she felt it belonged to her alone.   Denise Rossi did not believe that she was misappropriating a community asset, and therefore did not have the requisite fraudulent intent to deprive Respondent of a community asset.”

The problem with her argument is that the court expressly found her evidence was not credible.   The record supports this finding.   The court put it  in the following clear terms:  “I believe the funds used to purchase the ticket were community.   I don't believe the story about the gift.”   The court expressly found that Denise intentionally failed to disclose her lottery winnings in the marital settlement agreement, the judgment and her declaration of disclosure. This case presents precisely the circumstance that section 1101, subdivision (h) is intended to address.   Here, one spouse intentionally concealed a significant community property asset.   She intentionally consulted with the Lottery Commission as to how to deprive Thomas of a share of the prize;  used her mother's address for all communications with the lottery;  and did not disclose the winnings in the dissolution proceedings.   This supports a finding of fraud within the meaning of Civil Code section 3294.   The family court properly concluded that under these circumstances, Thomas was entitled to 100 percent of the lottery winnings under section 1101, subdivision (h).

Post: #15

Post: #16

Sometimes it's the other way around, but in this case the guy did it in a sneaky fashion and let his daughter cash in the lottery ticket.





In most instances I guess that women will leave their guys - they have the right mental framework of War Widow and hypergamy, while a man may desire a hotter less emasculating version of his wife, which he then can afford.

But since most lottery winners are broke after some years they are back to basics within a decade.

Post: #17

It's a bittersweet symphony.

I'm saddened that we're celebrating this type of justice, especially when the example is 15 years old.

That said, I agree, it was good seeing justice prevail.

Post: #18

Damn it's good to read one of those feel good stories once in a while! Hopefully he's still ballin with the money and hope that he didn't even attempt to see her ever since he got her $$$

Post: #19

Would this happen today?
If anything, he would probably be required to pay alimony on top of her keeping the 1.3mil.

Post: #20

(04-08-2015 01:04 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Sometimes it's the other way around, but in this case the guy did it in a sneaky fashion and let his daughter from a previous marriage cash in the lottery ticket.

Post: #21

Good for this dude, in my case if I had found out that my ex wife had hidden some lottery winnings or other bullshit years after the divorce I wouldn't be surprised..as again, if you operate under the premise that when a woman considers divorce her husband becomes a non-person in her eyes.

I'd see if a lawyer would take the case on spec and then forget about it, but wouldn't lose any sleep otherwise and be happy I had escaped that witch.

Post: #22

Great ruling. She's lucky she wasn't indicted for fraud.