Opinion ID: 1703095
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether an award of the primary progressive jackpot may be paid in twenty equal installments or whether the jackpot must be a lump sum payment

Text: ¶ 18. IGT maintains that it should be allowed to pay the sum in periodic payments since the face of the Pokermania machine reads 20 equal annual installments. Kelly, however, maintains that she is entitled to receive one lump sum payment. Further, she continues to assert that the issue of periodic payments was raised for the first time on appeal. ¶ 19. We again find that this issue was not properly raised at the circuit court level and, thus, was not properly preserved for appeal to this Court. In her motion to dismiss filed on August 12, 1998, Kelly requested that IGT be ordered to release said winnings immediately. This language does not adequately raise the issue of whether the winnings should be released as a lump sum or in periodic payments. IGT did not respond to Kelly's request by formal pleading but did discuss the issue in its brief responding to her motion to dismiss. Although the issue was addressed in the brief, it was never raised in an actual pleading or motion. Thus, we continue to find that the issue was not sufficiently presented to the circuit court. ¶ 20. We do find, however, upon closer scrutiny of the record, that it was error for us to order that Kelly be paid a lump sum. While IGT did not sufficiently raise its demand for periodic payments, Kelly likewise did not raise the issue of a lump-sum payment. ¶ 21. Pursuant to the Mississippi Gaming Commission Regulations, winnings of $200,000 or more may be paid over a twenty-year period. Miss. Gaming Comm'n R. III. A. 9(e)(2). The regulations state [t]he first payment must be made upon validation of the win. Id. III. A. 9(e)(4). IGT argues that the method of payment was never raised before the hearing examiner because both parties expected the regulations to apply and assumed that, in the event Kelly prevailed, the payments would be made periodically. ¶ 22. Kelly argues, where there is a judicial review, the gaming regulations are overridden by statute. Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-165(2)(2000) provides: If a licensee intends to file a petition for judicial review of the commission's decision pursuant to Sections 75-76-167 through XX-XX-XXX, inclusive, the licensee must first deposit in an interest-bearing account in a financial institution an amount equal to the amount in dispute. The licensee shall pay the full amount of the patron's claim, including interest, within twenty (20) days after a final, nonappealable order of a court of competent jurisdiction so directs. ¶ 23. In its order affirming the ruling of the gaming commission, the circuit court failed to address the issue of payment method. In our previous opinion in this case, we ruled that because the issue was not raised before the circuit court, [c]onsequently, IGT must pay Kelly the lump sum as originally required in the hearing examiner's decision. We now find that neither the hearing examiner's decision nor the decision of the commission was clear as to the payment method. We do not know whether the circuit court intended application of the gaming regulations which allow periodic payment or if it intended a lump sum. The parties' failure to properly raise the issue prevents us from examining whether the statute is in conflict or in harmony with the regulations. Though we are precluded from answering this question, the simple fact remains that IGT must be informed of exactly how to pay Kelly's winnings. Therefore, we remand to the Harrison County Circuit Court to make this determination.