88-001176 Department Of Banking And Finance vs. Lawrence R. Lindbom Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, June 9, 1988.

Summary: Child support arrearages owed by prize claimant will be deducted from lottery prize even if claimant is only part owner of winning ticket

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

LAWRENCE R. LINDBOM and )

DONALD JOHNSTON, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 88-1176

)

OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER, )

DEPARTMENT OF LOTTERY, and )

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )

REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )

)

Respondents. )

_________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this case on May 13,

1988, at Tallahassee, Florida, before Michael M. Parrish, a duly designated

Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. Appearances for the

parties at the hearing were as follows:

FOR PETITIONERS: Mr. Lawrence R. Lindbom, pro se

3542 Tiara Way, West

Jacksonville, Florida 32217

Mr. Donald Johnston, pro se

12888 Beaubien Road

Jacksonville, Florida 32225

FOR RESPONDENTS: Jo Ann Levin, Esquire

Senior Attorney

Office of the Comptroller

The Capitol, Suite 1302

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Chriss Walker, Esquire

Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

Thomas A. Bell, Esquire

Department of the Lottery

250 Marriott Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

ISSUES AND INTRODUCTION

The issue in this case concerns the application of Section 24.115(4),

Florida Statutes, to a claim for payment of a $5,000.00 lottery prize where the

winning lottery ticket was purchased by two individuals, one of whom has a

substantial court-ordered child support arrearage, one of whom does not, and the

prize claim form is submitted by the individual who owes child support. The

Petitioners contend that only half of the prize should be subject to the

outstanding child support debt. The Respondents contend that the entire prize

should be subject to the outstanding child support debt.

Shortly after the filing of the request for hearing in this case, the

Office of the Comptroller filed a Motion To Join Indispensable Parties, by means

of which it sought to join the Department of the Lottery and the Department of

Health and Rehabilitative Services as parties to this case. Both of the last

mentioned agencies agreed to being joined as parties and neither Petitioner

objected to the joinder. Accordingly, the Department of the Lottery and the

Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services were joined as parties

respondent.

At the hearing both Petitioners testified and also offered exhibits. The

Respondents presented the testimony of several witnesses and also offered

several exhibits. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were allowed

ten days within which to submit proposed recommended orders. All parties filed

post-hearing submissions containing proposed findings of fact. All proposed

findings of fact are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended

order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits received in

evidence at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact.

1. Shortly after the Florida Department of the Lottery began selling

lottery tickets, the two Petitioners, Lawrence R. Lindbom and Donald Johnston,

began the regular practice of buying lottery tickets together. They agreed that

they would make equal contributions to the cost of the lottery tickets and that

they would share equally in the proceeds of any lottery prizes resulting from

their co-purchased lottery tickets.

2. On January 26, 1988, consistent with the foregoing agreement,

Petitioner Lindbom purchased four instant game lottery tickets. Petitioner

Johnston had contributed funds to pay half of the cost of the four tickets.

Lindbom retained two of the tickets and gave the other two tickets to Johnston.

At Johnston's place of employment, Lindbom scratched the two lottery tickets he

had retained. One of the two was a $5,000.00 winning ticket.

3. At the suggestion of some third party, Lindbom wrote his name on the

winning ticket. He then showed the ticket to Johnston, and the other people

present congratulated the two of them on their good fortune. The two

Petitioners agreed that Lindbom would submit the ticket for payment in both of

their names.

4. On January 27, 1988, Lindbom traveled to the Jacksonville District

Office of the Department of the Lottery, where he inquired about filling out a

claim form in two names. He also inquired as to whether any money would be

deducted from the prize. Upon being advised that only one name could be placed

on the claim form and that no money would be deducted from the prize, Petitioner

Lindbom called Petitioner Johnston to advise him of what he had been told at the

Jacksonville District Office. Johnston told Lindbom to go ahead and file the

claim in Lindbom's name and they would split the prize when it was received.

Thereupon, Petitioner Lindbom filled out a Florida Lottery Winner Claim Form.

The information he placed on the claim form included information about the

lottery ticket and Lindbom's name, address, telephone number, and social

security number. At the bottom of the claim form, Lindbom signed a printed

statement reading as follows, in pertinent part. "Under penalty of law, I swear

that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the name, address, and social

security number correctly identify me as the recipient of this payment."

5. The claim form and winning ticket were submitted to the Tallahassee

office of the Department of the Lottery for validation and payment in accordance

with that Department's procedures.

6. The Department of the Lottery provided the Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services a list of $5,000.00 winners which contained the name of

Lawrence Lindbom. DHRS determined from its records that there was an arrearage

in child support payments by Lawrence Lindbom in the amount of $12,014.65.

7. On February 1, 1988, DHRS certified the child support arrearage to the

Department of the Lottery in accordance with Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes

(1987). On February 5, 1988, the Department of the Lottery forwarded the entire

$5,000.00 claimed by Lindbom to the Office of the Comptroller of the State of

Florida. On February 8, 1988, the Office of the Comptroller notified Lindbom by

certified mail of its intention to apply the entire $5,000.00 prize toward

Lindbom's unpaid court-ordered child support, with the result that no payment

would be made to Lindbom. Following receipt of the letter from the Office of

the Comptroller, Lindbom and Johnston jointly wrote a letter to the Comptroller

protesting the proposed disposition of the prize and requesting a hearing.

8. At all times material to this case, the Department of the Lottery had

in effect Rule No. 53ER87-43, F.A.C., titled "Procedure for awarding prizes."

That rule reads as follows, in pertinent part:

(6) Until such time as a name is

imprinted or placed upon the back portion of

the lottery ticket in the designated area a

lottery ticket shall be owned by the physical

possessor of such ticket. When a name is

placed on the rear of the ticket in the

designated place, the person whose name

appears in that area shall be the owner of

the ticket and shall be entitled to any prize

attributable thereto.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and on the applicable legal

principles, I make the following conclusions of law.

9. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. Sec. 120.57(1), Fla.

Stat.

10. Section 24.105(10)(e), Florida Statutes (1987), authorizes the

Department of the Lottery to adopt rules regarding "[t]he manner of payment of

prizes to holders of winning tickets," and Section 24.115(1), Florida Statutes

(1987), provides, inter alia, that "[t]he department shall promulgate rules to

establish a system of verifying the validity of tickets claimed to win prizes

and to effect payment of such prizes . . ."

11. Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes (1987), reads as follows:

(4) It is the responsibility of the

appropriate state agency and of the judicial

branch to identify to the department, in the

form and format prescribed by the department,

persons owing an outstanding debt to any

state agency or owing child support collected

through a court. Prior to the payment of a

prize of $600 or more to any claimant having

such an outstanding obligation, the

department may transmit the prize money to

the Comptroller who may authorize payment of

the balance to the prize winner after

deduction of the debt. If a prize winner

owes multiple debts subject to offset under

this subsection and the prize is insufficient

to cover all such debts, the amount of the

prize shall be applied in the manner that the

Comptroller deems appropriate. (emphasis

added)

12. The Petitioners and the Respondents have all addressed argument to the

issue of who is the "owner" of the lottery ticket that was presented for payment

by Petitioner Lindbom. Ownership of the ticket does not need to be resolved in

order to resolve the application of Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes (1987),

to the facts of this case. Petitioner Lindbom was indisputably the "claimant"

of the subject prize and Petitioner Lindbom had an outstanding debt for child

support collected through a court. The provisions of the statute impact on "any

claimant having such an outstanding obligation." And the statute goes on to

provide that the Comptroller can authorize payment of the balance to the prize

winner only "after deduction of the debt." Here the "claimants" debt is greater

than the prize, so there is no balance to be paid to the prize winner.

13. While it does not appear to be necessary to address the issue of

ownership of the lottery ticket to resolve the ultimate issue in this case, if

ticket ownership were to appear to be material, it would be resolved by

subsection (6) of Rule No. 53ER87-43, F.A.C. Pursuant to that rule provision,

Petitioner Lindbom became the owner of the ticket as soon as he placed his name

on the ticket. But regardless of his status as owner, his status as "claimant"

invoked the provisions of Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes (1987), and the

prize would be subject to his entire debt even if he were to be determined to be

only a half-owner or not an owner at all.

RECOMMENDATION

For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Office of the

Comptroller issue a final order in this case providing for payment to the

Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services of the entire $5,000.00 prize

originally claimed by Petitioner Lindbom.

DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida.

___________________________________

MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

[phone]

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 9th day of June, 1988.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1176

The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact

submitted by all parties.

Findings proposed by the Petitioners

The Petitioners' proposal consisted of a letter in which they assert three

specific reasons that entitle them to the relief sought. The factual aspects of

those three reasons are addressed below. The legal aspects have been addressed

in the conclusions of law.

Reason 1. Accepted as finding of fact.

Reason 2. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary

details.

Reason 3. Rejected as constituting argument rather

than facts.

Findings proposed by the Respondents

The Respondents filed a joint proposed recommended order. The paragraph

references which follow are to the paragraphs of the Findings of Fact section of

the Respondents' proposed recommended order.

Paragraphs 1 and 2) Accepted in substance, with the exception of the

implication that the Petitioners were not co- purchasers of the lottery tickets.

Paragraph 3: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as

inconsistent with the evidence.

Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7: Accepted.

Paragraph 8: Omitted as unnecessary procedural details covered by

introduction.

Paragraph 9: Accepted.

Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance.

First unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 10: Rejected as

constituting subordinate and unnecessary details.

Second unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 10: Accepted.

Third unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 10: Rejected as

irrelevant.

Fourth unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 10: Rejected as

irrelevant or subordinate and unnecessary details.

Fifth unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 10: First sentence

accepted. The reminder is rejected as argument rather than proposed findings of

fact.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Mr. Lawrence R. Lindbom

3542 Tiara Way, West

Jacksonville, Florida 32217

Mr. Donald Johnston

12888 Beaubien Road

Jacksonville, Florida 32225

Jo Ann Levin, Esquire

Senior Attorney

Office of the Comptroller

The Capitol, Suite 1302

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Chriss Walker, Esquire

Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services

1317 Winewood Blvd.

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

Thomas A. Bell, Esquire

Department of Lottery

250 Marriott Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

The Honorable Gerald Lewis

Comptroller

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350