• Home
  • News
  • Woman Can Sue Sister Over Alleged Oral Pact to Split $500K Powerball Win

Contracts

Woman Can Sue Sister Over Alleged Oral Pact to Split $500K Powerball Win

Posted Aug 11, 2009 1:14 PM CST
By Martha Neil

An 83-year-old woman can take her 87-year-old sister to trial over an alleged 1995 oral agreement that they would split the winnings if either one ever hit the jackpot, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled today.

It upheld an intermediate appellate court decision that a trial judge erred in granting a motion to dismiss the 2005 breach-of-contract suit brought by Theresa Sokaitis against Rose Bakaysa after her sister bought a Powerball ticket worth $500,000. And the state's top court said the claimed pact, if proven, would be enforceable, reports the Hartford Courant.

Even though Sokaitis didn't pay Bakaysa any monetary consideration to bind the alleged contract, their mutual promises to each other to share their potential winnings, if established at trial, would nonetheless create a legally enforceable agreement, according to the newspaper.

Attorney William Sweeney Jr., who represents Bakaysa, says he intends to appeal. He argues that the sisters' alleged contract to share their winnings was void under state gambling law and that, even if it was valid, it was revoked when they had a falling-out before his client bought the winning ticket.

Comments

1.

B. McLeod
Aug 11, 2009 1:49 PM CST

By the time all is said and done, they will succeed commendably in splitting the $500,000 with their lawyers.

Flag this comment

2.

AndytheLawyer
Aug 11, 2009 3:01 PM CST

This is a dispute that cries out for some resolution other than in the courts.  I recommend the Thunderdome: “Two old ladies enter.  One old lady leaves!”  With any luck, they’ll earn more in pay per view fees than the Powerball ticket was worth.

Flag this comment

3.

Ian
Aug 11, 2009 3:07 PM CST

I wonder what the plaintiff thinks the defendant in this case is using to pay her legal bills…...

Flag this comment

4.

nvs
Aug 12, 2009 9:40 AM CST

need dates, but statute of frauds anybody?

Flag this comment

5.

B. McLeod
Aug 12, 2009 10:06 AM CST

The fact pattern is a bit confused between sources, but if you read the Courant version, there apparently was a signed writing of some type.  Also, it appears the defense chose (or ethically, was bound) to admit the formation of the contract and defend based on illegality/public policy grounds.

Flag this comment

6.

Bean Counter
Aug 12, 2009 5:50 PM CST

The sisters have signed a contract that was drafted, uhhh, by an accountant.  I am no expert in CT gambling law, but I suspect that most gambling law exclude state run lottery, in CT, 53-278a(2) may apply which states that lottery is not gambling. 

Also, the contract is not about gambling but sharing of winnings.  Small difference, the act of gambling is governed by gambling law, but sharing of winnings should not because the gambling act is over.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.