Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wife's Lotto Secret Costs Years Of Grief (Wife Hides Lottery Win From Husband, Divorces Him)
Miami Hearlad ^ | Sun, Oct. 14, 2007 | EVAN S. BENN

Posted on 10/16/2007 7:01:30 AM PDT by DogByte6RER

Wife's Lotto secret costs years of grief

If you won a $28.5 million jackpot, would you tell your spouse? Bernice Heslop won -- and didn't tell. The legal fights continue 12 years later.

BY EVAN S. BENN

When Bernice Heslop opened the paper that Sunday in 1995 and saw the six Lotto numbers, her first thought must have been: ''I can't believe it. I'm RICH!'' And then, the evidence suggests, another thought formed, something like: ``Hmmmm . . . no need to tell the hubby about this.''

It was a fateful decision that has tangled three people -- Heslop, her now ex-husband and a saloon patron with exceedingly good hearing -- in a titanic 10-year tug of war. The stinking mess recently landed on Miami-Dade Judge David Miller's docket. He is expected to set a hearing date when he returns from vacation next week.

''This case has money, greed and betrayal,'' said attorney Richard Lara, whose law firm is representing the third party, the barroom bystander with rabbit ears. ``All the elements of a soap opera.''

The saga started Nov. 26, 1995. Heslop saw the lottery numbers in the paper -- 1-10-22-24-29-39 -- and knew she had become an overnight millionaire.

The $1 ticket Heslop bought at a North Miami Beach Publix won her a $28.52 million jackpot -- then one of the state's largest.

Heslop called her grown children and told them they were rich, too. But she didn't tell her husband, Ernest Moore Jr. The two married in 1984 but had been living separately for five years when Heslop won the lottery.

Instead of claiming her win right away, Heslop tucked the ticket away in a safe-deposit box and called her lawyer. She wanted a divorce, fast.

The divorce was finalized on Feb. 1, 1996. The next day, Heslop flew to Tallahassee and quietly claimed the prize for her and her kids. She was in and out of the lottery headquarters in minutes -- no posing for photographs, no press interviews.

Heslop would be paid $1,426,000 a year for 20 years.

''Basically, she was weaseling her way out of her marriage so she wouldn't have to give her husband any of the lottery money,'' said Bruce Baldwin, a lawyer at Miami's Mase & Lara who is representing the third party in the case, Marvel Rodriguez.

(At the time, Heslop legally did not have to share her financial records with Moore because she was not asking for child support. Florida has since changed that aspect of divorce law).

TRUTH COMES OUT

Moore agreed to the terms of the divorce -- no child support or alimony payments -- and the two went their separate ways.

Within weeks, Moore remarried a woman nicknamed Toots. And for the next two years, Moore had no idea his ex-wife had become a millionaire.

''Maybe he was living under a rock,'' Baldwin said.

That's where Rodriguez came in.

As the story goes in court files and published reports, Rodriguez was sitting in a bar one day in 1997. He overheard someone talking about a Miami-Dade woman who tricked her husband out of her lottery money by divorcing him before he found out.

Rodriguez -- a part-time bouncer and martial-arts instructor -- did some homework, realized the person was talking about Heslop and set out to find her ex-husband.

When Rodriguez caught up with Moore, he already had a crude contract drawn up, which states: ``I, Marvel Rodriguez, received some information concerning money owed to Mr. Earnest [sic] Moore.''

Rodriguez demanded 35 percent of any money Moore recovered.

Moore agreed to those terms in a notarized contract.

SETTLED, OR NOT?

In 1997, Moore sued his ex-wife, and in 2000 they settled out of court.

In the settlement, Moore received a lump-sum payment of $300,000, plus $57,000 a year for 15 years. His ex-wife was also required to pay any taxes.

Heslop has paid $57,000 annually to Moore, who in turn has paid Rodriguez his cut: $19,950.

The settlement terms were kept confidential, but Rodriguez's attorney said his client always suspected he wasn't getting his share. In August, a judge ordered Moore's attorney to disclose the settlement agreement to Rodriguez.

Now Rodriguez says Moore owes him 35 percent of the original $300,000 windfall -- about $175,000 including interest -- plus 35 percent of the income taxes Heslop paid on Moore's behalf.

Moore's attorney, Alphonso Peets, also a defendant in the suit, declined to comment.

Heslop, 62, a Jamaican-born former nurse's aide, lives in a gated Pembroke Pines development in a two-story lakeside home valued at $670,000.

Her ex-husband, Moore, 55, rents an apartment in South Miami-Dade, near the noisy Florida's Turnpike and South Dixie Highway.

Rodriguez, 51, owns a place in North Miami-Dade with cracked windows and chipped paint near Dolphin Stadium.

None responded to interview requests.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Chit/Chat; Local News; Miscellaneous; Society
KEYWORDS: betterorworse; dirtyrottenscoundrel; divorce; fl; greed; lawsuit; lottery; lotto; marriage; toots
''This case has money, greed and betrayal,'' said attorney Richard Lara, whose law firm is representing the third party, the barroom bystander with rabbit ears. ``All the elements of a soap opera.''

!

1 posted on 10/16/2007 7:01:35 AM PDT by DogByte6RER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DogByte6RER

So the real question is how much is still left.

FL is an equitable distribution state.

The wife concealed marital assets. She can also be found in contempt of court for lying on her affidavits.


2 posted on 10/16/2007 7:05:36 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DogByte6RER

There’s a C&W song in here somewhere.


3 posted on 10/16/2007 7:08:21 AM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DogByte6RER

How greedy can a person be?

Better off to do the right thing and just give spouse their half from the get-go and be done with it!


4 posted on 10/16/2007 7:08:22 AM PDT by Califreak (Duncan Hunter-no clothespin necessary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DogByte6RER
There have been two cases here in Texas of a spouse hiding a lotto winning and then divorcing the other.

There was jail time involved when all said & done.

5 posted on 10/16/2007 7:23:27 AM PDT by Deaf Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Califreak; longtermmemmory

According to the article, the ex-husband cheated the bouncer out of the 35% from the $300K lump sum payment and that’s what the dispute is currently about.


6 posted on 10/16/2007 7:25:14 AM PDT by elli1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Califreak
Agree 100%.

Imagine if her winning ticket was for $14M. Boy, think how happy she would have been!

Well, her ticket was for $28M. She could have given away half (it's not like it was hard-earned) and then she would have had $14M and been deliriously happy.

But that wasn't enough for her, I guess.

7 posted on 10/16/2007 7:29:12 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The broken wall, the burning roof and tower. And Agamemnon dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro

My favorite line:

“Moore remarried a woman nicknamed Toots”


8 posted on 10/16/2007 7:54:46 AM PDT by EggsAckley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: longtermmemmory; Deaf Smith
If I read the article correctly, listing her assets was not required of her in her divorce case, therefore she was not "hiding" or lying about her assets on any signed interogatories or in sworn depositions.

It also appears the case now before the Court has nothing to do with any charges of concealment of assets from her former husband.

This babe and her divorce lawyer were GOOD, LOL.

Leni

10 posted on 10/16/2007 8:31:17 AM PDT by MinuteGal (Three Cheers for the FRed, White and Blue !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

ping for $$$$


11 posted on 10/16/2007 9:49:29 AM PDT by DogByte6RER ("Loose lips sink ships")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

ping for $$$$


12 posted on 10/16/2007 9:49:36 AM PDT by DogByte6RER ("Loose lips sink ships")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
My favorite line: “Moore remarried a woman nicknamed Toots”

Likewise my favorite. You can't make this stuff up.

13 posted on 10/16/2007 10:09:53 AM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative (Global Warming Heretic -- http://agw-heretic.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DogByte6RER; longtermmemmory

Yet another example of why government shouldn’t be involved in defining/registering/licensing/regulating marriage. In a free country, people’s financial affairs should be their own business. If two (or more) people regard themselves as “married”, it should be up to them to spell out in writing what that means in terms of financial arrangements, if there’s to be any sharing or rights to the other party’s money or property. Did these two have a choice, or even an awareness, at the time they got government-married, re Florida being an “equitable distribution” state? Did they even get married in Florida? Or did they move there and find out later that the state had, without telling them, changed their financial rights and obligations?


14 posted on 10/16/2007 1:10:46 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
The wife concealed marital assets.

Probably the "husband" was likewise concealing "Toots".

15 posted on 10/16/2007 1:12:01 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DogByte6RER
EAsy to judge - but it sounds like the 'husband' was husband in name only - they had been living apart for 5 years...and it sounds like he was not the father of her kids.

So, let's be honest...How many of us would've

1:

Called up the estranged husband (wonder if Toots was living with him then?) or

2:

Thought, "this will take care of me and my children - if, after I pay 50% in taxes, I don't give him 50% of that - leaving 1/4th for me and my kids..."

16 posted on 10/16/2007 9:14:23 PM PDT by maine-iac7 ("...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" LINCOLN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Probably the "husband" was likewise concealing "Toots".

LOL Although, they had been estranged for 5 years - "Toots" probably already lived with him =

Yeah, I'd split it with someone I hadn't lived with for 5 years - (They were married in 84, by 95 they had been estranged for 5 years and probably "Toots" was living with him.

She had grown children and decided that she'd rather not give him half of the half left after taxes...

The real scum bag is the blackmailing bouncer...the estranged hubby aint' no prize either. To say he was entitled to half the money of someone he hadn't lived with for 5 years?

17 posted on 10/16/2007 9:24:43 PM PDT by maine-iac7 ("...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" LINCOLN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson