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
- 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.
- 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.