The Court of Justice of Alagoas (TJAL) determined that there was no stable union between a Mega-Sena winner, a former street vendor, and her ex-partner, a former kombi driver, before marriage.
This decision exempts the winner from the obligation to share the R$103 million lottery prize with him. Additionally, he was ordered to pay legal fees. However, it is still possible to appeal this decision.
Court decision
In January, authorities announced that the woman received the award in October 2020; Soon after, she quickly got married and was divorced within nine months. In an attempt to recover half the value and for moral damages, the former driver contacted the authorities.
The Court of Justice of Alagoas (TJAL) stated: “I understand that the elements contained in the process are not capable of demonstrating the configuration of the alleged stable union which, although the existence of a romantic relationship between the parties is indisputable, has moved steps towards marriage without, as a result, having space to recognize the stable union, from the perspective of the law.”
A year after the end of the relationship, the defense initiated the action, alleging fear of her “economic power”. Consequently, in December 2023, the Court ordered the blocking of 50% of the assets, totaling R$66 million; however, only R$22.5 million was available in different accounts. A February 2024 decision released 10% of this amount.
The Court releases the assets as soon as the final judgment occurs, that is, when there is no longer any possibility of appeal.
“When the final judgment is certified, proceed with the release of the accounts and assets blocked by this court, in favor of the defendant and, having completed the legal formalities, archive the files, with the due write-off in distribution”, states the sentence.
Marriage with separation of assets, before the Mega-Sena prize
It is stated in the divorce certificate that the marriage was under a total separation of assets regime, with no assets to be shared. Throughout the process, they mentioned that she made donations to her then husband, his children, and some friends. The values of such donations total between R$100 thousand and R$120 thousand, using part of the Mega-Sena prize.
The woman’s lawyer, interviewed by the Metrópoles portal, reported that she moved to another city for safety, and now lives only on part of the prize. This is due to the monocratic decision, in the first instance, which blocked the rest of the amount.
Dispute for the Mega-Sena prize
The main issue raised in the process concerns the ex-husband’s claim that there was a stable union before marriage, which would entitle him to half of the R$103 million Mega-Sena prize.
Judicially, a stable union, even without formal registration, could occur in partial community of assets if proven, claiming that the relationship was long, public and with the intention of starting a family. However, the relationship lasted only seven months, with no proven cohabitation.
On the other hand, the woman, an evangelical, denied all intimacy before marriage, justifying that their church discourages long engagements to avoid pre-marital relationships. She said, “the church doesn’t want it to take a long time to not have a sexual act before getting married.”
In the process, the man also claimed the presence of a joint bank account, but investigations confirmed that the account mentioned was individual.
The ex-husband also stated that the winning numbers and the amount bet on Mega-Sena were his, an allegation denied in the process. The court stated that there is no evidence that he chose the drawn numbers or instructed the woman to bet on them.
The marriage, which began after the woman received the award in October 2020, lasted nine months. The woman decided to end the relationship due to her partner’s rude behavior.
She described a moment of embarrassment, explaining: “We were already married… He [said] in front of everyone: ‘Wow, it looks like her in the bathroom’”. The woman cried when narrating the episode, saying she felt humiliated.
On the other hand, the former driver’s defense stated that the divorce took place while he was hospitalized for heart problems, an assertion contested by her who stated: “We separated while still at home.”
