Calif. Woman Becomes Instant Millionaire After Buying $1 Lottery Ticket
Andrea Willer won $30 million, but walked away with over $14 million after a cash payout option
She bought the winning ticket in March and was announced as the winner in late JuneA California woman is an instant millionaire after playing the lottery!
On Thursday, June 26, the California Lottery announced Andrea Willer as the single grand prize winner of a SuperLotto Plus ticket sold in Cotati and worth $30 million. She opted for a cash payout for less federal taxes and walked away with more than $14 million. The game costs just $1.
She matched all six winning numbers: 3, 13, 17, 23, 35, and 24.
Her ticket was purchased at a 76 Gas Station just off Highway 101 in Sonoma County in March, but according to the California Lottery's policy, SuperLotto Plus jackpot winners have 180 days from the date of the drawing to claim their prize.
The store that made the sale will receive a $150,000 bonus. Willer's deadline to claim her millions would have been Sept. 1 of this year.
Winners can pick up their claim forms in person at more than 23,000 California Lottery retail partners, but are also allowed to fill out a form online.
Additionally, the California Lottery's policy does not share the names of winners until they have been vetted by law enforcement, declared the actual winner, and received their official prize payment.
In December, an individual won a SuperLotto Plus jackpot, but the winner has yet to be revealed.
According to the California Lottery, even losers can win big when SuperLotto Plus and Fantasy 5 customers enter 2nd Chance drawings.
The game works by entering a non-winning ticket purchase into a new 2nd Chance drawing through the California Lottery App or online through their personal California Lottery account.
California resident Donald Breck, Jr. recently won $30,000 after his non-winning ticket got a 2nd Chance.
'I logged into my Lottery account and saw that I was a winner and I was like, 'This is pretty exciting!'' he said of his instant earnings.
Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.
With his newfound mini fortune, Breck says he plans to pay off a couple of credit cards and 'do some stuff around the house.'
He also praised the California Lottery for setting aside extra money for California public schools. 'I think it's working well,' he said.
Read the original article on People
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Digital Trends
11 minutes ago
- Digital Trends
Tesla brings its robotaxi service to San Francisco (sort of)
Tesla has rolled out a ride-hailing service in San Francisco, but the lack of a permit to allow it to accept fares from passengers means that it can't yet call it a robotaxi service. The first Tesla Model 3 and Model Y cars hit the streets of San Francisco on Thursday, just over a month after the launch of its robotaxi service in Austin, Texas, where it does have the proper permits. Recommended Videos A video uploaded by a passenger to X shows a Tesla employee with his hands touching the steering wheel as the car drove along in FSD (Full self-driving) mode, Tesla's advanced driver-assist feature. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) stated recently that at the current time, Tesla has to have a safety driver behind the wheel for testing, as well as to transport members of the public, Reuters reported. The regulator added that the automaker has to undertake a pilot phase that imposes no charges on passengers before applying for full-autonomous permits, a process that Reuters says took competitors such as Waymo 'years' to complete. Tesla is inviting employees' friends and family, and select members of the public, to participate in the early stage of the service. In June, the automaker launched its first robotaxi service in Austin, with a safety monitor sitting in the front passenger seat, not the driver's seat. And unlike the Tesla's ride-hailing cars in San Francisco, Austin's Model Y vehicles have 'robotaxi' branding on the side. Musk said recently that Tesla is planning to get permits to launch its robotaxi service in a number of states, including not only California but also Nevada, Arizona, and Florida. In California, strict regulations have prevented Musk from experiencing the kind of rapid robotaxi rollout that was possible in Texas. Essentially, the San Francisco launch appears to be a strategic move by Tesla to maintain momentum in the autonomous-vehicle sector.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mizuho Upgrades Alector (ALEC) to Outperform, Raises PT to $3.50 on Q4 2025 Latozinemab Trial Anticipation
Alector Inc. (NASDAQ:ALEC) is one of the stocks under $10 to buy now. On July 28, Mizuho upgraded Alector from Neutral to Outperform, while raising the price target from $2.50 to $3.50. The decision reflected Mizuho's belief that the pessimism surrounding Alector's shares is excessive, especially considering the company's cash position of ~$350 million, which is roughly double its current valuation. Mizuho's confidence is also driven by feedback from key opinion leaders regarding latozinemab, which is Alector's lead asset for frontotemporal dementia/FTD, raising its probability of success from 50% to 60%. The firm favors the stock in anticipation of the Phase 3 data for latozinemab, expected in Q4 2025. The company is advancing its clinical pipeline, with the INFRONT-3 Phase 3 trial for latozinemab on schedule for topline data release in Q4 2025. A biotechnologist in a white lab coat manipulating genes in a laboratory. In Q1 2025, Alector reported revenue of $3.7 million, which fell short of the estimated $4.38 million. The revenue decline from $15.9 million in Q1 2024 was due to the completion of performance obligations related to the AL002 program and the latozinemab FTD-C9orf72 Phase 2 trial in late 2024. However, the net loss per share of $0.41 was better than the estimated loss of $0.48 per share. Alector Inc. (NASDAQ:ALEC) is a late-stage clinical biotechnology company that develops therapies that are focused on counteracting the devastating progression of neurodegenerative diseases. While we acknowledge the potential of ALEC as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the . READ NEXT: and . Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data
Forbes
42 minutes ago
- Forbes
California Bill Aims To Hide Key Ballot Measure Details From Voters
Political leaders in California and Texas have traded barbs this week over the comparative fairness of their congressional maps. While most media is focused on the political implications of the spat over redistricting, legislation recently introduced in both states underscores the Lone Star and Golden States' contrasting approaches to policymaking. California lawmakers are considering legislation that would make it harder for voters to access basic but important information ballot measures that would authorize higher taxes or new spending. Assembly Bill 699, introduced by Assemblywoman Catherine Stefani (D), would permit ballot measures that increase taxes or approve new debt obligations to appear on the ballot without listing the proposed rate change, its costs to taxpayers, and other key details that voters need to make an informed decision. 'It allows the estimate, rate, and duration of the tax to be DROPPED from the ballot question for ALL BOND MEASURES,' Marc Joffe, president of the Contra Costa County Taxpayers Association and a senior fellow at the California Policy Center, wrote about AB 699 in a July 17 post on X. 'Instead these nine magic words will be substituted: 'See county voter guide for detailed tax rate information.'' The purpose of AB 699, Joffe added, is to 'hide the cost of bond measures from voters.' AB 699 provides yet another example of the contrasting approaches to governance taken by California and Texas lawmakers. Whereas California lawmakers are advancing legislation to reduce the amount of information available to voters for proposed tax and bond measures, Texas lawmakers voted this year to do the opposite. During the regular session of the Texas Legislature that ran from January until June, Texas Senator Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston) introduced Senate Bill 414, legislation that would require bond measures that appear on ballots in Texas to inform voters of the total debt obligation they are being asked to approve, not just the principal loan amount. SB 414 would mandate that all bond measures appear on the ballot with language also informing voters about total interest costs that taxpayers will have to pay off. As Texans for Fiscal Responsibility noted about SB 414, the reform championed by Senator Middleton 'promotes honesty, limits waste, and helps prevent unnecessary debt and tax hikes.' The goal and effect of Senator Middleton's proposal stands in contrast with Representative Stefani's bill in Sacramento, which would deprive voters with needed information about ballot proposals in an attempt to make it easier to authorize new debt and higher taxes. As TFR explained, SB 414 'makes local bond elections more transparent by requiring ballots to show the full cost of the debt—including interest—rather than just the principal.' Representative Stefani's bill, in contrast, would make local bond elections less transparent by allowing proposed bond measures to appear on the ballot without disclosure of costs that taxpayers will incur. As TFR explained in their notice calling on Texas legislators to support SB 414, it does more than just force disclosure of total debt obligations and associated costs, SB 414 'also mandates a voter information document that shows how much debt a local government already has and estimates how much taxes would go up on a $100,000 home.' Senator Middleton's proposal, as TFR notes, gives Texas taxpayers more of 'the tools they need to make informed decisions.' Representative Stefani's proposal, meanwhile, would deprive Californians the tools and information they need to make informed decisions. By requiring the language of bond measures to inform voters of not only the principal amount to be borrowed but also the interest costs that taxpayers will also have to pay back, state lawmakers and governors can improve truth in ballot measure advertising. Critics contend such a requirement will make bond measures harder to pass moving forward. However, if depriving voters of pertinent information is intregal to the passage of a bond proposal, that doesn't say anything good about the proposal or those advocating for it. A state mandate that bond measures disclose interest costs would ensure voters are provided complete information about the borrowing to which they're being asked to consent. In Texas, lawmakers recognize that even more could be done to improve the bond proposal and approval process by maximizing the share of voters who get to decide. Improving The Democratic Process For Initiatives And Referenda While SB 414 is about increasing the information available to voters, another bill considered in Texas this year, Senate Bill 1209, aims to increase the number of voters who decide the fate of bond measures. SB 1209, introduced by Senator Bryan Hughes (R), requires bond measures seeking to authorize new public debt to appear on the November general election ballot. Local government officials in Texas who seek to take on more public debt are now allowed to place bond measures on the November general election ballot or the May primary ballot. Proponents of SB 1209 point out that when a bond measure appears on the spring ballot, a small share of the electorate is able to saddle the entire community with new debt obligations. James Quintero, policy director at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, points to the low turnout documented in local elections across Texas this past May as further evidence of the need for SB 1209. 'In some of Texas' largest, costliest bond elections, voter turnout was anemic, meaning that a tiny fraction of Texans obligated every one of their neighbors to new debt and higher taxes,' noted Quintero. 'This is not a good way to make big, important decisions.' 'Bond elections are best decided when the most number of voters participate in the decision-making process,' Quintero added. 'Something so obvious should prompt local governments to limit holding their bond elections to the uniform election date in November—and that's it.' A small sliver of a community having the ability to authorize new debt obligations for which all taxpayers are on the hook is a problem that is not limited to Texas. In fact, it's on display right now in North Carolina's most populous county. Next week on August 8, Mecklenburg County Commissioners will meet to discuss a proposal to refer a local sales tax hike to the ballot this November. The North Carolina General Assembly granted that new taxing authority to Mecklenburg County with the recent passage of the PAVE Act. A review of turnout in recent elections underscores how North Carolina lawmakers could've increased the number of voters who get to decide by several multiples had the PAVE Act required local officials to place the proposed sales tax hike on the general election ballot in even years only. In the 2024 general election, 580,321 voters cast ballots in Mecklenburg County, nearly five times the 120,662 Mecklenburg County residents who voted in November 2023, the last odd year general election. In the odd year general election prior to that, in November of 2021, only 120,040 Mecklenburg County voters went to the polls. Meanwhile, 569,999 voters turned out in November 2020. North Carolina legislators who want to maximize the number of North Carolinians who decide costly ballot propositions could emulate a modified version of Senator Hughes' proposal, proposing state legislation that forces all local tax and bond measures onto even-year general election ballots. Mecklenburg County Commissioners could significantly expand the share of the electorate that votes on the proposed sales tax hike by referring it to the ballot in November of 2026 rather than 2025, but don't expect any of them to suggest that when they meet next week.
