I read the paper this morning about Judge Bailey's ruling in the secret lotto case:
Hold on there Bruce -- that's an awfully rosy picture you're painting.
A Miami-Dade judge on Thursday said the wife of a lottery winner cannot go forward with a lawsuit against her husband until she can provide a legal argument to support her claim for half of his jackpot.
''She has no identifiable legal rights at this time,'' Circuit Judge Jennifer D. Bailey said. ``Where does the law say you automatically have a right to participate in the proceeds?''
Bailey dismissed temporarily the lawsuit Donna Campbell filed against her husband, Arnim Ramdass, an American Airlines mechanic who hit a $19 million Florida Lotto jackpot last summer with 16 of his co-workers.
Campbell and her attorneys have 20 days to amend their complaint. They will try to prove that the money Ramdass used to buy the lottery ticket came from his work salary, which is considered a marital asset.
''It appears that once we do that, we can go forward and get a trial date and proceed with vindicating Ms. Campbell's rights,'' attorney Bruce Baldwin said after Thursday's hearing.
Can someone help me understand why Bruce is suing for fraud before Judge Bailey instead of going after the money as a marital asset in divorce court? Judge Bailey herself raised the issue:
''I'm not sure she has the ability in this court -- civil court -- to stop her husband from disposing of the lottery money,'' Bailey said.Has Bruce sought to enjoin the husband from disposing of the lottery money, or sought to deposit the funds into the court registry? Anyone with some insight on this please email me or post your thoughts.