## Facts

- Theresa Sokaitis and Rose Bakaysa, sisters, regularly participated in legal gambling, including lottery play and casino visits, and informally shared winnings.
- In January 1995, Theresa won a large casino jackpot and shared proceeds with Rose.
- In April 1995, the sisters executed a written agreement to share equally any winnings from their lottery and casino gambling.
- A later dispute arose over a $250 loan from Rose to Theresa; during that discussion, Theresa stated she no longer wanted to be Rose’s “lottery partner,” and Rose agreed.
- After that exchange, the sisters stopped buying lottery tickets together, stopped going to the casino together, and ceased contact.
- Rose later formed a similar winnings-sharing arrangement with their brother, Joe.
- Rose and Joe won a $500,000 Powerball prize, and Theresa sued Rose claiming entitlement to a portion under the 1995 written agreement.
- Prior appellate proceedings established that Connecticut General Statutes § 52-553 did not render the sisters’ agreement void; the case returned to the Superior Court to resolve contract-law and factual questions.

## Issues

1. Whether the parties mutually rescinded their 1995 written agreement to share legal gambling winnings before the Powerball win.
2. If the agreement remained in effect, whether Rose breached it by not sharing the Powerball proceeds with Theresa, and what remedy (if any) was due.

## Decision

- The Superior Court entered judgment for Rose Bakaysa.
- The court found the 1995 sharing agreement had been mutually rescinded before the Powerball win.
- Because no sharing contract was in force at the time of the lottery prize, Rose had no contractual duty to share the winnings with Theresa.
- Theresa’s breach-of-contract claim failed, and no damages were awarded.

## Legal Principles

- A contract may be rescinded by mutual assent, which can be shown by express statements or by conduct inconsistent with the contract’s continued existence.
- Mutual rescission may be inferred where both parties manifest an intent to terminate the agreement and thereafter act as though the contractual relationship has ended.
- Under the law of the case on remand, a trial court must treat as settled the higher court’s determination that a contract to share proceeds of legal gambling is not void under Connecticut General Statutes § 52-553; remaining disputes are resolved under ordinary contract doctrines.

## Conclusion

The court held that the sisters’ words and subsequent conduct showed a mutual termination of their written winnings-sharing agreement, so the later Powerball winnings were not subject to any obligation to share, and the defendant prevailed.


Sokaitis v. Bakaysa, No. CV054007243S, 2010 WL 2383902 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 11, 2010)