## Facts

- Clyde and Dorothy Meyer and Donald and Marilyn Hawkinson, friends from North Dakota, traveled together to Winnipeg, Canada in August 1997.
- At a Winnipeg hotel gift shop, Donald Hawkinson bought lottery tickets for the Western Canadian Lottery.
- The Meyers alleged Donald proposed that each couple buy tickets and “split” any winnings; the Hawkinsons denied any agreement to share proceeds.
- Clyde Meyer bought three lottery tickets after the alleged “split” statement, but did not show the tickets or state how many he purchased.
- One of Donald Hawkinson’s tickets later won about $1.6 million Canadian (about $1.2 million U.S.).
- The Meyers sued to enforce the alleged oral agreement and asserted related equitable theories seeking a share of the winnings.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Hawkinsons, concluding that even if an agreement existed, it had an unlawful object under North Dakota’s anti-gambling public policy.

## Issues

1. Whether an alleged oral agreement between North Dakota residents to share proceeds of a Canadian lottery ticket is enforceable in North Dakota courts.
2. Whether the legality of the lottery in Canada affects enforceability in North Dakota.
3. Whether plaintiffs may recover under unjust enrichment or similar restitution theories when enforcement of the alleged agreement is barred as a gambling contract.

## Decision

- The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the Hawkinsons.
- The court held North Dakota public policy and statutes bar judicial enforcement of an agreement to share lottery winnings.
- The court held the alleged “we’ll split” arrangement was inseparable from the underlying wager and therefore void as a gambling-related obligation.
- The court held the lottery’s legality in Canada did not overcome North Dakota’s policy against enforcing gambling contracts in its courts.
- The court held equitable or implied-contract remedies could not be used to obtain the same relief barred under contract law.

## Legal Principles

- A valid contract requires a lawful object; agreements founded on gambling consideration or constituting wagering claims are void and unenforceable under North Dakota law.
- A forum state may refuse to enforce a contract that violates its strong public policy, even if the underlying transaction is lawful where made.
- Parties cannot evade a statutory and public-policy bar on enforcement by reframing the claim as unjust enrichment, restitution, or quasi-contract when the relief sought arises from the same prohibited gambling transaction.
- Summary judgment is proper when, accepting the nonmovant’s version of disputed formation facts, the claim fails as a matter of law due to unenforceability.

## Conclusion

North Dakota courts will not enforce an alleged agreement to share Canadian lottery winnings, and plaintiffs cannot obtain the same recovery through restitutionary theories, because such claims constitute unenforceable gambling obligations under North Dakota public policy and statutes.


Meyer v. Hawkinson, 626 N.W.2d 262 (N.D. 2001)