Howard Browning v. Lynn Anne Poirier
2015 Fla. LEXIS 1177, 40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 304, 165 So. 3d 663 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An oral agreement of indefinite duration that is terminable at will is not barred by the Statute of Frauds if its full performance is possible within one year from the inception of the agreement, regardless of the parties' expectations about its actual duration.
Facts:
- Howard Browning and Lynn Anne Poirier began living together in a romantic relationship in 1991.
- Around 1993, Browning and Poirier entered into an oral agreement to purchase lottery tickets and to equally share in the proceeds of any winning tickets.
- On June 2, 2007, Poirier purchased a winning lottery ticket.
- Poirier collected one million dollars, minus deductions for taxes, from the winning ticket.
- When Browning requested half of the lottery proceeds, Poirier refused to share them.
Procedural Posture:
- Howard Browning filed a lawsuit against Lynn Anne Poirier in a Florida trial court (court of first instance) for breach of an oral contract and unjust enrichment.
- The trial court granted Poirier's motion for a directed verdict on both counts, ruling that the oral contract was barred by the statute of frauds and that an unjust enrichment claim could not proceed simultaneously with a claim for an express contract.
- Browning appealed the trial court's judgment to the Fifth District Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
- A panel of the Fifth District initially reversed the trial court's decision, but the Fifth District later granted a motion for rehearing en banc, withdrawing the panel opinion.
- Sitting en banc, the Fifth District substituted a new opinion, affirming the trial court's judgment regarding the breach of oral contract claim (finding it barred by the statute of frauds) but reversing the judgment on the unjust enrichment claim and remanding for further proceedings.
- The Fifth District certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida, and Howard Browning (Petitioner) sought review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Statute of Frauds bar enforcement of an oral agreement of indefinite duration to equally share lottery winnings, where the agreement is terminable at will and its full performance is possible within one year of its inception?
Opinions:
Majority - Polston, J.
No, the Statute of Frauds does not bar enforcement of an oral agreement of indefinite duration to share lottery winnings if it is terminable at will and full performance is possible within one year. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed the Statute of Frauds (§ 725.01, Florida Statutes) and clarified its interpretation of the one-year performance provision for oral agreements of indefinite duration. Citing Yates v. Ball and Williston on Contracts, the Court affirmed that oral contracts fall outside the Statute of Frauds if, at the time of their making, there is a possibility in law and in fact that full performance could be completed within one year. The Court reasoned that the agreement between Browning and Poirier was of indefinite duration and could have been fully performed within one year, for instance, if a winning ticket was purchased and proceeds split, or if either party ended the agreement. Therefore, because the agreement could possibly have been performed within one year, it was not subject to the Statute of Frauds, and the Fifth District’s decision to the contrary was quashed.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and solidifies Florida's adherence to the 'possibility of performance' rule regarding the Statute of Frauds' one-year provision, aligning Florida law more firmly with the majority approach in contract law. By receding from any conflicting aspects of the 'general and qualifying rule' from Yates v. Ball, the Supreme Court provides a clearer framework for analyzing oral contracts of indefinite duration. This case will likely make it more difficult for parties to avoid oral agreements by invoking the Statute of Frauds when the agreement could theoretically be completed within a year, even if its expected duration was longer.
