One does not choose one’s family, especially when money is at stake

One does not choose one’s family, especially when money is at stake

Winning a huge jackpot can reveal the best or the worst according to people. We recently learned from The Sun that a lottery child sued his parents for not giving him enough money for this miraculous gain. Although he received more than £ 1.6 million, the son decided to go to court to force his parents to maintain him until the end of his days.

The rotten apple of the family

In 2011, a man working at the factory won £101 million at the Euro Millions. Dave Dawes and his wife Angie decided to distribute £30 million of this amount to the family, some close friends and charities.

Michael, who would later make his father’s pride, receives the tidy sum of £1 million and shows good money management by spending virtually all in one month. With his companion James Beedle, they buy a house at £550,000 and give more than £ 250,000 to Beedle’s family. Michael also decides to leave his position as engineer immediately.

After this spending madness, Michael returns to his father to ask for more money. Irritated by the fact that he quit his job so quickly and by the fact that he comes back to ask for more, Dave agrees nevertheless to give money to his son but in small slices. He thinks that it is better to ration the greenbacks rather than giving him another big sum of money.

Michael and James appreciate the new lifestyle they can afford and make no effort to cut spending. Very soon, they spend about £30,000 a month and dig out the fortunes of his father and his wife (Angie is Michael’s mother-in-law).

It was only in March 2013 that Dave decided to stop the monthly transfers to his son’s account, aware that he would never make any effort to manage his money or to try to work. Michael’s reaction to this announcement was to live up to his spoiled child behavior. He repeatedly demands from his father that he give him £5 million, while insulting his mother-in-law in case of refusal.

When Dave decides to cut the bridges with his son, the latter sues him for the following reason: he hoped his father would give him money for the rest of his life. Difficult to admit to a court – especially after being kept for several years – the judge dismissed Michael’s claim that he had “had sufficient funds to live comfortably, not take this opportunity “.

The pride of the family, no doubt.