165 So. 3d 663
Fla.2015Background
- Browning and Poirier lived together beginning in 1991 and in ~1993 allegedly made an oral agreement to each buy lottery tickets and split any winnings equally.
- In 2007 Poirier purchased a ticket that won approximately $1,000,000 net; Browning demanded half and she refused.
- Browning sued for breach of an oral contract and unjust enrichment; Poirier denied the contract and invoked the statute of frauds.
- The trial court granted Poirier a directed verdict on both counts: breach (statute of frauds) and unjust enrichment (cannot seek quasi-contract when an express contract exists).
- The Fifth District (en banc) affirmed as to the oral contract claim under the statute of frauds, but reversed as to unjust enrichment and certified a question of great public importance to this Court.
- The Florida Supreme Court reviewed whether an at-will/pooling oral agreement to share lottery winnings is barred by the statute of frauds when full performance might be possible within one year.
Issues
| Issue | Browning's Argument | Poirier's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an oral, terminable-at-will agreement to pool lottery winnings is barred by the Florida statute of frauds (one-year provision) | The agreement is not within the statute because it was indefinite in duration and could have been fully performed within one year from inception (so it is enforceable) | The agreement was intended to last longer than a year (it was tied to the relationship) and thus falls within the statute of frauds requiring a signed writing | Court held the oral agreement is not within the statute of frauds because, judged at formation, full performance was legally and factually possible within one year; reversed the Fifth District on that point and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Yates v. Ball, 181 So. 341 (Fla. 1937) (interpreting one-year rule of statute of frauds for contracts of indefinite duration)
- Browning v. Poirier, 128 So. 3d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (district court en banc decision under review)
- Acoustic Innovations, Inc. v. Schafer, 976 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (applies possibility-of-performance-within-one-year rule)
- Wilcox v. Lang Equities, Inc., 588 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (same)
- LynkUs Commc'ns, Inc. v. WebMD Corp., 965 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (discusses scope of one-year provision)
- Khawly v. Reboul, 488 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (statute of frauds and indefiniteness)