Press Releases
Higgins Wins on Behalf of Gambling Granny
Boston associate Sean Higgins successfully represented Theresa Sokaitis, an elderly widow living in Connecticut, in an unusual case involving a pact between two sisters and their gamble that one day one of them would draw the winning Powerball ticket.
On April 12, 1995, Ms. Sokaitis and her sister Rose Bakaysa created and signed a written agreement to split the proceeds of any lottery winnings. On June 20, 2005, Ms. Bakaysa presented the winning Powerball lottery ticket, worth $500,000, to the Connecticut lottery officials for payout. Ms. Bakaysa refused to pay Ms. Sokaitis, instead splitting the money with the sisters' brother Joseph Troy. Ms. Sokaitis then sued for breach of contract after Ms. Bakaysa failed to honor their agreement to share the jackpot.
The Connecticut trial court dismissed the case on summary judgment finding that the sisters' agreement was unenforceable under Connecticut General Statute § 52-553, a statute prohibiting wagering and contracts for wagering. Ms. Sokaitis successfully appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that § 52-553 is not applicable to the agreement. Ms. Bakaysa then took a further appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
On appeal to Connecticut's high court, Mr. Higgins argued that the agreement was not a "wagering contract" for purposes of the statute, and even if it were, the statute cannot apply to the agreement because it involved forms of gambling legalized by Connecticut's legislature. Alternatively, he argued that the anti-gambling statute had been impliedly repealed by subsequent legislation. The Court sided with Mr. Higgins on all arguments, issuing a comprehensive opinion discussing the current state of Connecticut's public policy as to gambling. Specifically, the opinion overruled a 1947 case, which until this opinion, had been the primary controlling Connecticut case for gambling disputes. Ultimately the Court held that "[i]t would be, in our view, contrary to the statutory scheme as a whole to conclude that an agreement to share the spoils of legal wagering is illegal and unenforceable."
The case now goes back to New Britain Superior Court for trial.
