The Rhode Island Supreme Court has upheld a Family Court ruling that a woman who won $4 million on a lottery scratch-off ticket shortly after her divorce finalized does not have to share the winnings with her ex-husband. The court’s decision, issued June 30, affirms that Ana Varela’s lottery payout is not considered marital property subject to division.

Varela, 48, and Daniel M. Monteiro, 56, were divorced in October 2020 following a relatively uncontested process in Family Court. The couple had married in November 2007, but Monteiro left their home in 2012 and moved to Massachusetts. Varela filed for divorce in February 2020, asserting they had lived separately for over three years. Monteiro did not respond to the divorce petition, and the court issued a judgment on October 8, 2020, awarding joint custody of their two children and noting the parties had mutually divided personal property. The paperwork indicated they owned no real estate or joint debts.

Following the final judgment, Varela purchased a winning lottery ticket between October 29 and October 31, 2020, and cashed it on November 4, opting to receive a lump sum payment of $2.6 million, which amounted to roughly $1.8 million after taxes. Monteiro subsequently challenged the status of the lottery winnings, filing a motion in September 2021 to vacate the divorce judgment. He argued that because the ticket was purchased before the divorce judgment was finalized, the winnings should be treated as marital property subject to equitable distribution.

Varela contested this claim, maintaining there was no evidence the ticket had been bought before the final judgment, describing the allegation as speculative. After renewed litigation, the Family Court dismissed Monteiro’s motion and ruled in 2023 that the lottery proceeds were not marital assets. Monteiro appealed to the state Supreme Court.

In its ruling, the high court rejected Monteiro’s arguments that the final judgment was void and that his due process rights were violated. The court also dismissed claims that the Family Court acted without jurisdiction when it entered the decision pending entry of final judgment and the final judgment on the same day in October 2020. The justices characterized any procedural errors as minor defects that did not affect the court’s authority over the matter.

Monteiro’s attorney, Robert D. Goldberg, expressed disappointment with the outcome and surprise that the court did not enforce the state’s statutory provisions governing marital assets. Goldberg is married to former Rhode Island Supreme Court Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg, who did not participate in the case. Meanwhile, Varela’s attorney, Nicholas J. Hemond, described the ruling as a positive result but warned that the case highlights risks for individuals who proceed without legal representation. “When litigants try to navigate the system without counsel,” Hemond said, “things can go sideways quickly.”