Sokaitis v. Bakaysa
938 A.2d 1278, 105 Conn. App. 663, 2008 Conn. App. LEXIS 33 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agreement to share proceeds from a legal gambling activity is an enforceable contract when the consideration consists of the parties' mutual promises to share, not the gambling winnings themselves, thereby falling outside the scope of statutes that void wagering contracts.
Facts:
- On April 12, 1995, sisters Theresa Sokaitis and Rose Bakaysa created and signed a written agreement.
- The agreement stated that they were 'partners in any winning we shall receive, to be shared [equally],' specifically including winnings from slot machines, casino card games, and lottery tickets.
- On June 18, 2005, a Powerball ticket yielded winnings of $500,000.
- On June 20, 2005, the sisters' brother, Joseph F. Troy, Sr., and Bakaysa presented the winning ticket to Connecticut lottery officials, indicating they held it jointly.
- Lottery officials paid Bakaysa and Troy approximately $250,000 each.
- Bakaysa did not provide Sokaitis with any portion of the lottery winnings.
Procedural Posture:
- Theresa Sokaitis (plaintiff) filed a breach of contract action against Rose Bakaysa (defendant) in the trial court.
- The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the agreement was void and unenforceable under General Statutes § 52-553.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment in her favor.
- The plaintiff, Sokaitis, appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
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 General Statutes § 52-553, which voids contracts where the consideration is money won from gambling, render unenforceable a written agreement between two sisters to share equally any future winnings from legal gambling activities?
Opinions:
Majority - West, J.
No. General Statutes § 52-553 does not render the agreement unenforceable because the consideration for the contract was the mutual promises to share, not the winnings themselves. The statute voids contracts 'of which the whole or any part of the consideration is money . . . won . . . at any game.' At the time the parties made their agreement, no money had been won. The consideration was the exchange of promises to share equally in any future winnings, which is a valid basis for a contract. Because the winnings did not exist at the time of the agreement, they could not have been the consideration. Therefore, the statute is inapplicable, and the contract is enforceable.
Dissenting - Lavery, J.
Yes. The agreement is an unenforceable wagering contract because the true consideration was the money to be won from gambling. The 'reason, motive, or inducement' for the parties' promises was to split 'money . . . won . . . at any game,' which falls directly within the statutory prohibition. The majority's distinction is artificial. Furthermore, the legislature has amended the statute subsequent to the legalization of the state lottery, indicating its intent to maintain the prohibition on enforcing such contracts, despite the legality of the underlying gambling activity.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the distinction between an unenforceable 'wagering contract' and an enforceable agreement to share the proceeds of legal gambling. By defining consideration as the mutual promises exchanged between the parties at the time of contracting, rather than the future winnings, the court carves out a significant space for the enforcement of such agreements. This ruling provides legal backing for informal arrangements like office lottery pools and family agreements to share jackpots, treating them as valid contracts. It narrows the applicability of anti-gambling contract statutes, limiting them to agreements where the consideration is the wager itself or pre-existing winnings, rather than a promise about future proceeds.
