PATERSON, N.J. – Inez Sanchez is suing her ex-boyfriend for his $338 million Powerball jackpot claiming that she is entitled to her share of the money. Pedro Quezada won the prize that was worth about $152 million after taxes. Superior Court Chancery Judge Margaret McVeigh is refusing to dismiss the lawsuit, despite the couple never having been married. The two were together for ten years, have one child together and co-own a grocery store, attorneys say.
Sanchez’s attorney claims that a large portion of the lottery winnings is already gone. They argue that $57 million has been sent to Quezada’s native Dominican Republic, $5 million was given away, $300,000 was spent on a house, and $20 million can’t be located. They are demanding the judge freeze all remaining assets, which was refused by the court. A decision will be handed down in the case soon.
31 comments
Wait so how does she have any legal basis for laying claim to the money outside of maybe back pay on child support? This article fails to mention upon what basis she is making this claim…
Looks like they had a common law marriage. 10 years, with a child and joint ownership of property and bill paying means something legally.
I see. Thank you for enlightening me.
Nope no common law marriage in Jersey since ’39.
Common law marriage
New Jersey does not recognize Common Law Marriages and hasn’t since 1939….
Good, I hate greedy bitches. Trying to get cash, is all this bitch is about. Good thing she is his ex.
That’s a shame, he has lived like a married man until it wasn’t convenient.
oh really? So she wants all the legal benefits and property rights of marriage without being married? Convenient
Women are completely virtuous and righteous by their very nature, just ask one and she will tell you. None of them would do something as deceitful as lying to a man for 18 years to get child support out of him and then when the kid turns 18 finally admit that the man isn’t the father. (Just an example)Therefore if she claims that she is entitled to half this mans winnings she must but correct and beyond reproach.(Just for the record since it is hard to convey with text alone, that was Sarcasm) I think the key word here is entitled. This women should just do what everyone else does in a situation of poor luck, suck it up and move on. She either left him and now wants some of his money just because he was blessed with these winnings after she left. Or she was likely making him miserable for such a long period of time he finally just left.
How’s that…browbeaten by a woman until he finally decides to leave?
She’s entitled. Why? Obama.
I started out feeling she probably didn’t deserve anything, but feel differently now. In my mind, They are married after a ten year relationship where they share a ownership of a business and have a child together. Government has no business sanctioning marriage anyways, and granting licenses to say who is married. It is a matter of the heart and commitment between two people..
Sorry but it’s not a matter of the heart it a legal binding contract. (in this context) Ask your self this. Do you really want the precedent set that will allow people to make up what they feel is right and what isn’t? If you are not married you are not married. Plain and simple. This is a nation of precedents. There is no going back once things are set legally. You only lose rights and civil liberties, we never get them back. You really want to let law be set based on emotions here?
Chris, I get what you’re saying completely. So how do you have a marriage without it being government sanctioned? Saying who can be legally married. Marriage should be something honored when two people make it official based on their faith, or self determined moment of that commitment. I just don’t think a piece of paper granted by the government should determine who is married. Common law would say they are married after ten years anyways.. Or it did in most states already. Shouldn’t common law be honored and someone be entitled to something after that lengthy of a commitment together? You mostly reeled me back in.. But these questions still linger for me. 😉
Joey good honest response. My take on this would be that if you are eligible for common law marriage it should still have to entail paperwork. You may be eligible to drive but you have to get a license, you may be eligible to own a pistol but you need a permit. I believe there needs to be paperwork if we are going to make legal decisions such as money owed. Otherwise the bond doesn’t exist legally.
Thank you for your response and the civility. I find myself agreeing with you for the most part. 🙂 All the best, friend.
You’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth there bud. If government has no business sanctioning a marriage how can they legally rule as to whether or not she is entitled to any of her EX-boyfriend’s winnings?
Based completely on Common Law? People should be married if they decide they are, without a government ordained piece of paper granting them that religious decision to be committed..
Is common law marriage a law in the state they reside? Not every state has common law marriage
Pennsylvania does, but I don’t know about the armpit.
Philly is part of PA dumbass.
I guess that’s why this happened in Paterson, New Jersey, retard.
You’re the one who geographically challenged….you wrote “armpit”…everyone knows “armpit” = Philly…numb bag.
Your infallible logic is a welcome addition to this comments section, thank you.
Score:
ZO – 3
GD – 0
Carry on.
f HER
A…no…and Judge McVeigh needs to be brought before the bar…clearly there is an appearance of impropriety here.
All these women acting like “well, he was PRACTICALLY married to her ”
Then watch if a woman had won. The song being sung would probably be: “Well, he wants the money, he should have married her. Teach him to take her for granted.”
And, lol, it’s assumed he should be paying HER child support and she’d get custody. It’s almost like men have no custodial rights and women know they will get the child and money – despite when the subject comes up they’ll deny that very thing.
Welcome to the modern world my friend. Equal rights means screw the man…especially if he’s white.
I don’t see a ring on that finger