Sokaitis v. Bakaysa
2009 Conn. LEXIS 219, 293 Conn. 17, 975 A.2d 51 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A general statute that voids all wagers and contracts based on gambling winnings does not apply to agreements to share winnings from legal forms of gambling. Such statutes must be interpreted harmoniously with subsequent legislation legalizing certain gambling activities, effectively limiting the older statute's application to illegal gambling.
Facts:
- On April 12, 1995, sisters Theresa Sokaitis and Rose Bakaysa created and signed a written agreement.
- The agreement stipulated they were 'partners in any winning we shall receive, to be shared [equally],' from activities such as slot machines, cards, and lottery tickets.
- On June 18, 2005, a Powerball lottery ticket in which Bakaysa had an interest was a winner, worth $500,000.
- The winning ticket was presented for payout by Bakaysa and the sisters' brother, Joseph F. Troy, Sr., who indicated they held the ticket jointly.
- Lottery officials paid Bakaysa approximately $250,000, less taxes, as her share of the winnings.
- Bakaysa failed to provide Sokaitis with any portion of the lottery winnings, per their agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- Theresa Sokaitis sued Rose Bakaysa in Connecticut trial court for breach of contract.
- Bakaysa filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the agreement was void under General Statutes § 52-553.
- The trial court granted Bakaysa's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment in her favor.
- Sokaitis, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Connecticut Appellate Court.
- The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the agreement was not a wagering contract within the meaning of the statute.
- Bakaysa, as appellant, was granted certification to appeal to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
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 Connecticut General Statutes § 52-553, which voids all wagers and contracts where the consideration is money won at a game, apply to and render unenforceable a private agreement to share winnings from legal gambling activities like the state lottery?
Opinions:
Majority - Zarella, J.
No. General Statutes § 52-553 does not apply to or render unenforceable a contract to share winnings from a legal gambling activity. A literal reading of § 52-553, which voids all wagers, is irreconcilable with the numerous, more recent statutes that explicitly legalize certain forms of gambling, such as the state lottery and casinos. To create a harmonious and consistent body of law, the court must presume the legislature intended to create a coherent statutory scheme. Therefore, § 52-553 is interpreted to apply only to contracts related to illegal gambling. Because the agreement between Sokaitis and Bakaysa concerned winnings from the state lottery, a legal activity, it is not void under the statute.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of a broad, century-old anti-gambling statute by applying the principle that statutes must be read to form a consistent and harmonious body of law. It establishes that as legislatures legalize specific activities, general prohibitory statutes may be implicitly limited to apply only to the remaining illegal conduct. This precedent ensures that older laws reflecting outdated public policies do not frustrate the purpose of modern legislation. It solidifies the enforceability of private agreements related to legal activities that were once considered against the public good.
