Spokane7
58°
January 23, 2011 in City, Idaho
Estranged husband may get jackpot cut
RATHDRUM – Holly Lahti burst into the spotlight a week ago in a feel-good story about a single mother who won a $190 million Mega Millions jackpot.
Then came the mugshot: a thin young woman with disheveled brown hair, sporting a black eye and cuts and bruises on her face and neck. It turned out she was separated from a man who court records indicated had abused her and now has a possible claim to some of the money through a quirk in Idaho law.
Lahti, 29, went underground with her two daughters immediately after learning she had won half of a $380 million jackpot in the Jan. 4 drawing. She has not been seen or heard in public since.
The mugshot was taken after Lahti and her husband, Josh Lahti, both were arrested during a domestic dispute in 2003. The charges were later dropped, and the couple has long been separated.
Josh Lahti said he did not know Holly had won the lottery until told by a reporter from the Associated Press last week.
“That’s awesome! I won’t have to pay child support!” he said upon learning his wife was rich.
As it turns out, the husband could be entitled to a chunk of the winnings because he and Lahti never divorced and were never legally separated. Idaho’s murky law on the issue requires a divorce filing to grant separation, which is a key factor in splitting up assets between spouses.
While the lawyers sort out the issue in the months ahead, Holly Lahti can rejoice in the fact that her troubled past has given way to riches beyond her wildest dreams.
She quit her job as a customer service representative for a bank after winning the jackpot, then she asked family and friends not to talk with reporters. She did not appear at the Jan. 12 press conference in Boise in which her good fortune was revealed.
In a brief telephone interview, Josh Lahti said the two started dating in high school and got married in 2001.
Holly Lahti still lives in the couple’s home in Rathdrum. Josh Lahti said he sees his daughters, ages 12 and 10, most days.
Her friends are upset at all the attention paid to the decade-old mugshot and say it does not reflect the devoted and hardworking young mother who has moved on from a troubled marriage.
“She is kind. She is friendly. She is shy,” said Jennifer Mayberry, who has lived in the same neighborhood for a decade. “My children play with her children.”
Lahti opted Friday to collect her jackpot in a lump-sum payment instead of annual payments over 25 years. She will get $120 million, which will be reduced to $80.6 million by federal and state taxes.
It will be a dramatic change for a woman who by all indications appeared to be of limited means.
A search of public records revealed that she grew up in California and moved with her parents to Rathdrum, where she graduated from high school. Her marriage appears to have included some violence.
Holly Lahti was arrested and charged with battery in 2003 in Kootenai County, but the prosecutor eventually dismissed the charges. Her husband was arrested on the same charge the same day, and those charges were also dismissed.
In 2003, Josh Lahti was arrested for violating a no-contact order, and that charge was dismissed. He was also charged with second-degree kidnapping, possession of drug paraphernalia, domestic abuse, battery and false imprisonment. All but the kidnapping were dismissed. He was sentenced to 180 days in jail and three years probation.
In 2000, he was charged with domestic violence, but the charge was reduced to disturbing the peace. He was also cited in 2001 for failing to make child support payments.
Does Josh Lahti have a claim to some of the money? A University of Idaho law professor said it is unclear.
Nearly all other states except Idaho have laws that differentiate between separation and divorce, with division of assets clearly defined in each case, said Elizabeth Brandt, professor of family law. The Idaho statute muddles the concept of legal separation, and there is no clear case law on the issue.
But while the lottery winnings are almost certainly community property, Josh Lahti should not expect a huge windfall, Brandt said.
Holly Lahti can still file for divorce and contend the winnings are all hers because the couple do not live together and do not support each other, Brandt said. A divorce does not automatically produce a 50-50 split of assets.
Holly Lahti could also negotiate a settlement with her husband, she said.
“I can’t imagine he will have a significant claim to these earnings in the end,” Brandt said.
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Man dies following early Saturday car crash 
stkittchick on January 23 at 5:49 a.m.
As well he should get half the winnings. If the gender roles were reversed and he had won, everyone would expect—demand—that the wife gets “her” share. It’s only women who want it both ways, in general.
They ARE married. He legally is entitled to half no matter what their issues are or whether he’s a jerk or whatever.
Reportedly he sees his children regularly and pays child support. How is she a “single” parent? There are two parents actively involved in these children’s upbringing.
“Single” mother implies a heroic superwoman doing it all alone, but she’s certainly not alone.
I am a woman and a mother, by the way.
cwiseazcougfan on January 23 at 6:17 a.m.
What a class act. “Now I don’t have to pay child support!” Stay classy, Josh Lahti.
Alfredo on January 23 at 6:26 a.m.
Right on cwiseazcougfan! I was thinking the same thing.
If I’m not mistaken, just because she won the lottery doesn’t mean he won’t have to pay child support and if I’m also not mistaken, won’t he need to pay additional child support if she’s required to share any winnings with him?
Good for Holly, let’s hope her husband doesn’t get a dime and has to continue to pay for his share of having a child (like a real man) despite his wife’s new found wealth.
SpokaneLiberal on January 23 at 7:59 a.m.
She should quickly agree to pay him a settlement that includes the dissolution of their marriage for somewhere in the 250-500K range. He may not have a strong claim but with lawyer costs this would be a steal of a price to conclude the matter.
SpokaneLiberal on January 23 at 8:01 a.m.
Oh and stkittchick I would say the same thing if the man was the winner - unless the woman had the kids. If the person with the kids won they should pay a small settlement to the other and settle it. If the person without the kids wins that is another matter. Then a substantially larger settlement is in order.
eagleproducer on January 23 at 8:10 a.m.
Described by friends as “kind, friendly and shy” doesn’t tell me if she is hot or not. I already know she’s loaded, let’s get to the important stuff. Does anyone know if she’s seeing someone?
skittershick: I’ll bet you are nursing a black eye or other bruise while this is typed… You think Josh is entitled to half of this jackpot when the man’s first reaction is to express joy and relief because he no longer has the obligation (which is untrue) to be financially responsible for children he brought into the world? Not only does his statement reveal absolute ignorance of the laws concerning supporting your children, it demonstrates a profound void of morality as well. He’s beaten women in the past, served time, but all of a sudden now he “deserves” tens of millions of dollars because of some type of ill-begotten notion you have about men being treated unequally in our culture?
Ed Byrnes on January 23 at 8:40 a.m.
A first reaction of not having to pay child support speaks volumes about what a “devoted father” this guy is. Holly needs an attorney as tough as her estranged husband is shallow.
mikewsu on January 23 at 8:54 a.m.
I’m sure $81mil can get the best attorney around. ;)
Thoreau on January 23 at 9:16 a.m.
All of those charges “dismissed”? What’s the point of arresting someone, if the judge dismisses nearly every charge? What a waste of time.
misjustice on January 23 at 1:16 p.m.
Holly, give him his half, file for divorce, file for sole physical custody of the children (with permitted visitation), file the parenting plan and request child support.
With his increased wealth, the child support payments should be calculated as such. Within 10-15 years you will get back much of the winnings paid to him. Case closed.
And let this serve as a warning to others. File for a legal separation where all financial ties are severed from that point forward; even if you chose not to formally divorce at that time. A legal separation can protect both parties from financial misdeeds.
Just sayin’.
Alfredo on January 23 at 4:55 p.m.
@misjustice, if I’m not mistaken, child support would be based on this year’s earnings, thus he would have to pay a huge amount right away and subsequent years would drop back down to his (probably) very small, if any, amount since he sounds like a deadbeat. I might be wrong, just seems logical they would want the child support immediately upon his newfound wealth. I am not a lawyer and I’ve never had to pay child support (though if I did have to pay child support I would gladly do so to ensure that my child, my responsibilities are taken care of before my own) but I would imagine the courts would want around 1/3 of whatever he received (just guessing).
If I were her, I like the idea of offering him a settlement of a few hundred thousand. He sounds like a loser that would jump at the chance to have a few extra dollars…otherwise she can easily afford to tie him up in court for a few years fighting him, just because she can :)
I definitely could not agree more about the legal separation. Not only in cases of winning the lottery, but imagine your spouse whom you’ve been away from for years suddenly forecloses on a home or decides to rack up huge credit card debt, you’re responsible as well since there is no proof the two of you are no longer living as husband and wife and sharing responsibilities.
misjustice on January 23 at 5:34 p.m.
Exactly, Alfredo; re legal separation, it protects both parties should one or another chose to act irresponsibly. Let’s say that one party racks up credit card debt which the other party has no part in; the corporation under writing the debt will go after the party that can pay, even if they had no role in creating the debt. It’s just good planning to avoid having legal liability for an-other’s acts.
Yeah, the “daddy” would most likely take a settlement but it would still behove the mommy to get a parenting plan as well as custody, support, and visitation in a court ordered finding. Holly, the mother, can not sign away her children’s “right” to support by offering a settlement; “daddy” would still be on the hook. And it is the state that will ensure that the children are not financially abandoned by “daddy”. Either way, “daddy” pays…
misjustice on January 23 at 5:40 p.m.
“Daddy” is lucky that I’m not the lottery winner; I’d make him lawyer up (spending his own money for a retainer) and then I’d drag the proceedings out for as long as I could, all the while eating away at any money he’d receive. Even 5 years could be costly…
But I’m a bitter bride which will never be satisfied!
; )
Alfredo on January 23 at 6:44 p.m.
Oh misjustice…sad to say but some lawyer will take on his cause with a contingency.
hunternomore on January 23 at 6:47 p.m.
Hey stchick. “As well he should?” are you kidding me????? They have been “separated” for years. Probably because she didn’t have the money to pay for a divorce. You are no mother, sweetie. As for disparaging the “single” mother remark, just because a guy “sees” his kids doesn’t mean she is not single. Any “single” mother would know this. Next time try…….
greenlibertarian on January 23 at 7:12 p.m.
Lawyers win.
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
Scoutster on January 23 at 7:27 p.m.
For god’s sake people….operate from a place of abundance and graciousness instead of scarcity.
She has $80,000,000,000.00.
There should be enough to share without making everyone (including the children) sorry for poor choices made long ago.
misjustice on January 23 at 7:33 p.m.
Scout, I guess that I could be a little more “generous” about my ruminations, but for daddy’s exclamation, “That’s awesome! I won’t have to pay child support!”
Father of the year? Not so much.
grandall2 on January 23 at 7:55 p.m.
Elizabeth has it right. But the interesting thing is the intent of the parties. The community property system in Idaho is unusual but it can be terminated by an oral (or I think) implied agreement to end it. Now if the husband has not been reporting half of the income his wife made on his tax returns for the last few years, that may be a problem for him. Particularly if he says he is entitled to half of the winnings now.
Scoutster on January 23 at 8:16 p.m.
oops i gave her too much…not used to all the zeros…
I agree, misj…he’s not exactly Ward Cleaver…but they have two babies together…
Orphan on January 23 at 9:07 p.m.
Child support is based on both peoples income not just the fathers. Her high income would equate to him not paying much CS and equal income would not mean he owed a lot. If she gets to keep it all she could end up paying him CS.
Most of you dont have a clue as to how CS works.