## Facts

- Howard Browning and Lynn Anne Poirier lived together as romantic partners beginning in 1991.
- Around 1993, they allegedly made an oral agreement to each buy lottery tickets and equally share proceeds from any winning tickets.
- In 2007, Poirier bought a ticket that won approximately $1 million (net of taxes).
- Browning demanded half of the winnings under the alleged agreement; Poirier refused.
- Browning sued for breach of the oral contract and unjust enrichment.
- Poirier denied any agreement and asserted Florida’s statute of frauds, arguing the alleged oral agreement was unenforceable because it was not in writing.

## Issues

1. Whether an indefinite, terminable-at-will oral agreement to share lottery winnings is barred by Florida’s statute of frauds as an agreement not performable within one year.
2. Whether the statute-of-frauds test turns on the possibility of full performance within one year, rather than the parties’ actual long-term course of conduct.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative and held the alleged agreement was not unenforceable under the statute of frauds.
- The Court concluded the alleged oral agreement fell outside the statute of frauds because full performance was possible within one year of its inception.
- The Court quashed the district court’s decision that had barred the breach-of-contract claim under the statute of frauds and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Florida’s statute of frauds bars an oral contract only if the contract cannot possibly be fully performed within one year from the time it is made.
- An agreement of indefinite duration that is terminable at will is generally outside the one-year provision when full performance could occur within one year.
- The relevant inquiry is possibility of full performance within a year, not probability, expectation, or the fact that the parties continued performing beyond one year.
- Absence of an express term requiring performance beyond one year does not, by itself, place an oral agreement within the statute of frauds.

## Conclusion

The court held that a terminable-at-will oral agreement to pool and split lottery winnings is enforceable despite not being in writing when the agreement, by its terms, could be fully performed within one year.


Browning v. Poirier, 165 So. 3d 663 (Fla. 2015)