## Facts

- Edward Seward, a regular customer at a Waffle House in Grand Bay, Alabama, periodically bought Florida lottery tickets and gave them to friends, family, and Waffle House employees.
- Before the March 6, 1999 Florida lottery drawing, Seward placed individual tickets in separate envelopes labeled for specific recipients and delivered tickets to Sandra Deno, Angie Tisdale, and Matthew Adams; none of those tickets won.
- After the drawing (March 7, 1999), Seward delivered tickets similarly to Jackie Fairley and Tonda Dickerson; Fairley’s ticket lost, and Dickerson’s ticket matched the winning numbers for a $5 million prize (paid over time).
- Deno, Tisdale, Adams, and Fairley claimed the five employees had an oral agreement that if any one of them won, all five would split the winnings equally (20% each).
- The trial court found an enforceable oral agreement to share winnings and awarded each plaintiff 20% of the prize.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Dickerson orally agreed to share lottery winnings equally with the four co-employees.
2. Assuming an oral sharing agreement existed, whether it was void and unenforceable as a contract made in Alabama “founded on a gambling consideration” under Ala. Code § 8-1-150.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered judgment for Tonda Dickerson.
- The court proceeded on an assumption arguendo that an oral agreement existed, and decided the case on enforceability.
- The court held the alleged agreement was a contract “founded on a gambling consideration” within Ala. Code § 8-1-150 and therefore void and unenforceable.

## Legal Principles

- Under Ala. Code § 8-1-150, a contract “founded on a gambling consideration” is void and cannot be enforced in Alabama courts.
- An agreement formed in Alabama to share proceeds from a lottery win is unenforceable when each party’s promised benefit depends on gambling winnings, even if the lottery itself is lawful where conducted.
- When an asserted contract is void as a matter of statute, a court may resolve the dispute on that legal ground without deciding contested factual questions about contract formation.

## Conclusion

The court held that an Alabama-made oral agreement among co-workers to split Florida lottery winnings was void under Ala. Code § 8-1-150 because it was founded on a gambling consideration, so the plaintiffs could not compel the ticket holder to share the prize.


Dickerson v. Deno, 770 So. 2d 63 (Ala. 2000)