Author Question: Assignment. Joseph LeMieux, of Maine, won 373,000 in a lottery operated by the Tri-State Lotto ... (Read 98 times)

justinmsk · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

Assignment. Joseph LeMieux, of Maine, won 373,000 in a lottery operated by the Tri-State Lotto Commission. The lottery is sponsored by the three northern New England states and is administered in Vermont. In accordance with its usual payment plan, Tri-State was to pay the 373,000 to LeMieux in annual installments over a twenty-year period. LeMieux assigned his rights to the lottery payments for the years 1996 through 2006 to Singer Freidlander Corp for the sum of 80,000. LeMieux and Singer Freidlander (the plaintiffs) sought a court judgment authorizing their assignment agreement despite Tri-State's regulation barring the assignment of lottery proceeds. The trial court granted Tri-State's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that Tri-State's regulation was invalid. Is it? Discuss fully.

Question 2

Lois was the agent of Lester, who owned a store in Walton, Iowa. While Lester was away on vacation, the Mississippi River reached record flood. As an agent, Lois only had permission to engage in sales at the store and purchase certain items. Faced with the prospect of losing all goods, Lois shipped Lester's inventory to a storage facility 200 miles away, out of the path of the flood waters. This incurred costs, but saved the inventory. Lois acted in:
a. violation of her duty of loyalty
b. violation of her duty of obedience c. violation of her duty of accounting
d. accordance with her duty of accounting
e. accordance with her duty of reasonable care

wilsonbho · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

Assignment
The Vermont Supreme Court held that the regulation was invalid. The court pointed out that, unlike some other states' lottery statutes, Vermont's statute did not prohibit assignments of winnings: the statute only barred payment of the proceeds to someone other than the winner in the absence of an appropriate judicial order. Because other states had passed their prohibitory statutes first, and Vermont had enacted a statute with similar language but without the prohibition on assignments, the court reasoned that the Vermont legislature purposefully eliminated this language so as to allow for assignments. The court acknowledged that a court should not approve an assignment that would be unreasonable or unjust (for example, if it was the result of fraud, incapacity, duress, undue influence, or illegality). In any event, the regulation conflicted with the statute. The court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment and remanded for a determination as to whether the assignment was acceptable in this case.

Answer to Question 2

e