In Browning v. Poirier, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a verbal agreement between an unmarried couple to split lottery winnings was enforceable, even without a written contract, because the deal could have been performed within one year of being made. The decision narrowed how Florida’s Statute of Frauds applies to open-ended oral promises and let Howard Browning pursue his claim to half of a $1 million ticket his former partner had cashed alone.1Justia. Browning v. Poirier – Section: II. ANALYSIS
The Verbal Pact and the Winning Ticket
Browning and Lynn Poirier began living together in 1991. Around 1993, they agreed out loud to buy lottery tickets and split any prize equally. Nothing was written down. The arrangement had no end date and could have ended at any time.2Justia. Browning v. Poirier – Section: I. BACKGROUND
In June 2007, Poirier bought a ticket that won $1 million. She kept the money. Browning asked for half after taxes, pointing back to the 1993 promise, and sued for breach of contract when she refused.3Justia. Browning v. Poirier
The Statute of Frauds Defense
Poirier’s defense relied on Florida Statute § 725.01, the state’s Statute of Frauds.4Florida Senate. Florida Statute § 725.01 Under the one-year rule, a contract must be in writing and signed if it cannot be performed within one year of when it was made. Because the couple had lived under the arrangement for 14 years, Poirier argued the pact was plainly meant to run longer than a year, and its lack of a writing made it unenforceable.2Justia. Browning v. Poirier – Section: I. BACKGROUND
What the Florida Supreme Court Held
The court rejected that reading. The one-year rule, the justices held, reaches only agreements that are impossible to perform within a year. Whether the parties actually finished within a year, or expected to, is beside the point. Because Browning and Poirier could have bought a winning ticket the day after their 1993 conversation and split the prize on the spot, performance within a year was possible from the start. That kept the promise outside the writing requirement.1Justia. Browning v. Poirier – Section: II. ANALYSIS
With the statutory bar removed, Browning was free to pursue the claim on its merits. The case returned to the lower courts to sort out whether the 1993 conversation actually took place as he described.1Justia. Browning v. Poirier – Section: II. ANALYSIS
Why the Ruling Matters for Oral Agreements
The decision draws a sharp line between what a contract requires and what the parties happened to do. An indefinite oral agreement in Florida survives the Statute of Frauds as long as some path to performance within one year exists, even a remote one. The length of the relationship, the number of years the promise sat unfulfilled, and the parties’ own expectations do not pull the deal into the writing requirement on their own.1Justia. Browning v. Poirier – Section: II. ANALYSIS
That protects people who rely on verbal promises tied to a triggering event, like a lottery win, that could occur at any moment. It also leaves the practical problem intact. Getting past the Statute of Frauds is not the same as proving the promise was made. A plaintiff still has to convince a fact-finder that a decade-old conversation happened and said what he claims it said, which is exactly the difficulty the writing requirement was designed to spare courts in the first place.