A Lottery Winnings Contract Hypothetical

Due to the overzealous sharing of dubious content, this Facebook Post showed up on my news feed earlier this evening. Here's a photo of the post:

Unless you expand the photo, the writing may be difficult to read. The photo shows several Mega Millions lottery tickets under the following text:

October 22, 2018
Mega Millions Proposition
I Christopher Ferry, herby [sic] agree to equally share 100% of the earnings I win from the Mega Millions drawing on Tuesday, October 23rd, 2018 with all parties that like, share and comment on my Facebook post that states this propostiion [sic]. This is an official legal document that can be used in the court of law. 

It's then signed, presumably by Christopher Ferry. The writing is in all capital letters, so I took the liberty of guessing at the intended capitalization rather than hurt your eyes.

After liking, sharing and commenting on the post (just kidding), I made the foolish mistake of reading the comments. There seem to be many people out there on the Internet who are confused about the basics of contract law. 

To those confused souls, I now say, you're welcome.

A surprising number of very confident commenters on the post noted that the document was not legally binding because it was not notarized. This is nonsense. While notarization may be required for certain documents or agreements, parties can enter into contracts with each other without notarization. Take, for example, oral agreements, or the website terms of service for reading this blog post, which state that by reading this I now own a small, yet noticeable percentage of your soul and that you are required to enter into binding arbitration with me to prove otherwise. This story of a winning lawsuit to claim a portion of lottery winnings as a result of a verbal agreement is yet another example. People can, and do, enter into non-notarized contracts every day. 

A smaller number of commenters speculated that the document may not be legally binding because it had numerous spelling errors. While spelling errors may occasionally be of legal significance (by misidentifying parties or terms, or injecting vagueness into the agreement), the errors here do not appear to have this effect. If spelling errors meant doom for legal documents, than a disturbingly massive percentage of contracts, pleadings, and judicial opinions would be rendered void.

Some other folks point out that the document is not legally binding because there is only one signature on it. A contract, they think, needs to be signed by all parties that are bound by it. This does not appear to be the case here, however, as Ferry's post is an offer that invites acceptance by performance. Ferry indicates that to accept his offer of sharing the earnings he receives, a party need only "like, share and comment on my Facebook post that states this propostiion [sic]." Once a party has done that, that person or entity will have fulfilled their end of the agreement.

On a related note, if Ferry ends up winning, a likely way he will whittle down the number of those who may have a claim against him will be to refuse to compensate anyone who did not completely perform their side of the agreement. Ferry notably requires that parties "like, share and comment" on the post, so anyone who only likes, or only comments would not have fulfilled their end of the bargain. His comments could make this issue a little more interesting, as he states that only those who "LIKE / SHARE / COMMENT" are eligible -- but these comments are parol evidence which some courts may deem inadmissible (particularly since the terms of the contract itself are fairly clear). And even if Ferry's comments are considered, they do not appear to contradict the terms of the agreement.

In short, the offer may give rise to a binding contract, provided that the party claiming to accept the offer has liked, shared, and commented on the post.

Unfortunately for Ferry, if he wins anything in the lottery, he will be required to share those winnings with anyone who fulfilled the requirements that he posted. Whether that is $1.6 billion or $2.00 -- Ferry agreed to share "100% of the earnings" that he would win, rather than limiting his performance only to a situation in which he won the jackpot. At the time of this writing, there are only about 30 minutes to go, but it will be interesting to see if Ferry wins a substantial amount, but less than the jackpot, as this may be enough for certain delightful people on the Internet to seek to recover their $1.32 to which they are entitled.

It's also fun that Ferry states that the document "can be used in the court of law." 

Good luck to Mr. Ferry, and to all others out there who, like me, are excited for their inevitable life of leisure once the winning numbers are announced.

New California Law on Care of Pets in Divorce Proceedings

The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that California recently passed a law (AB 22764) clarifying how courts may take into account care of pets in determining who will receive them following divorce proceedings.

The text of the new section 2605 of the Family Code (which will go into effect on January 1, 2019) is as follows:

2605. (a) The court, at the request of a party to proceedings for dissolution of marriage or for legal separation of the parties, may enter an order, prior to the final determination of ownership of a pet animal, to require a party to care for the pet animal. The existence of an order providing for the care of a pet animal during the course of proceedings for dissolution of marriage or for legal separation of the parties shall not have any impact on the court’s final determination of ownership of the pet animal. 

(b) Notwithstanding any other law, including, but not limited to, Section 2550, the court, at the request of a party to proceedings for dissolution of marriage or for legal separation of the parties, may assign sole or joint ownership of a pet animal taking into consideration the care of the pet animal. 

(c) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply: 

(1) “Care” includes, but is not limited to, the prevention of acts of harm or cruelty, as described in Section 597 of the Penal Code, and the provision of food, water, veterinary care, and safe and protected shelter. 

(2) “Pet animal” means any animal that is community property and kept as a household pet.

Prior to the passage of this law, pets were deemed community property to be split equally among the parties to the proceedings. Now, courts have a formal basis for considering which of the parties to the divorce fed the pet, took the pet to the vet, or cared for the pet in other ways in determining which of the parties should get custody.

Notably, subsection (c)(2) specifies that this law only applies to pets that are "community property," so this law does not apply to pets that either of the parties may have had before the marriage. As for pets that both parties bought or adopted together, but before they were married, this could be complicated. If one of the parties paid for the pet, the court may well view that pet as that party's separate property. If the parties adopted the pet from a farm in northwest Iowa without making any payments, this could make things more difficult to determine. The parties could also agree in writing that a pet owned prior to the marriage is deemed community property following the marriage.

All of this seems very complicated, so the California legislature would do well to pass a law clarifying the disposition of pets obtained by two people in a relationship before the marriage. A simple solution would be preferable, such as (just off the top of my head) a law that the pet should go to the third party the married parties know from law school who frequently cares for the pet while the married parties are out of town. That law has yet to materialize, but at least for now, judges have a formal basis to consider care of pets when determining who gets custody.