Case Title: Lemieux v. Tri State Lotto Commission

Citation: 164 Vt 110, 666 A.2d 1170

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-08-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
LEMIEUX_V_TRI_STATE_LOTTO.94-590; 164 Vt 110; 666 A.2d 1170

[Filed 11-Aug-1995]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 No. 94-590


Joseph LeMieux, Jr., et al.                       Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            Washington Superior Court

Tri State Lotto Commission                        March Term, 1995


Alan W. Cheever, J.

       Colin R. Benjamin of Benjamin & Kazmarski, P.C., Newport, and Richard
  H. Saudek of Cheney, Brock, Saudek & Mullett, P.C., Montpelier, for
  plaintiffs-appellants

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Mark J. DiStefano, Assistant
  Attorney General, Montpelier, for defendant-appellee

       M. Jerome Diamond and Joshua R. Diamond of Diamond & Associates, P.C.,
  Montpelier, for amici curiae Allen and Bach Investment Co.


  PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ., and Bryan, S.J.,
            Specially Assigned


       DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiffs Joseph Lemieux and Singer Freidlander Corp.
  appeal from the Washington Superior Court's grant of summary judgment to
  defendant Tri-State Lotto Commission, holding that defendant does not have
  to honor an assignment of lottery winnings between the plaintiffs. 
  Plaintiffs argue on appeal that a rule promulgated by defendant barring
  assignment of lottery winnings is invalid because it (1) directly
  contravenes the intent of the Legislature, (2) violates the Vermont
  Constitution's separation of powers requirement, and (3) results in an
  improper retroactive application of law.  We conclude that the Legislature
  did not intend to preclude the assignment of lottery prizes with court
  approval, and therefore, reverse and remand.  This disposition renders
  consideration of plaintiffs' other grounds of appeal unnecessary.

       On March 17, 1987, plaintiff Joseph Lemieux of Jay, Maine won an
  aggregate prize in

 

  the Tri-State Megabucks lottery of $373,000.  This lottery is run for
  the three northern New England states and is administered in Vermont.  Per
  its usual payment plan, defendant disbursed the prize to Lemieux through a
  twenty-year annuity to be paid in equal, annual installments of $18,650. 
  According to his affidavit, Lemieux originally dedicated the proceeds to
  payments on a new house, but his wife lost her job, and Lemieux ended up
  deep in debt.  On  October 26, 1993, after negotiations through his lawyer,
  Lemieux entered into a written agreement with plaintiff Singer Freidlander
  Corp. assigning to the corporation his entire right, title, and interest in
  the lottery-prize installments for the years 1996-2006 for the sum of
  $80,000.   Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment from the Washington
  Superior Court authorizing the assignment agreement between them despite
  defendant's regulation barring such agreements.  The trial court granted
  defendant's motion for summary judgment, and this appeal followed.

       The Tri-State Lotto Compact establishes a lottery game to be
  maintained and operated throughout Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.  See
  generally Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 8, §§ 401-422 (West 1994); N.H. Rev.
  Stat. Ann. § 287-F (1987); 31 V.S.A. §§ 671-678.  The member states enacted
  the legislation to raise additional revenue, see, e.g., 31 V.S.A. § 673,
  and to compete more effectively with the large grand prizes offered in the
  Massachusetts and New York lottery games.  The game is administered by a
  commission comprised of one member from each of the party states, 31 V.S.A.
  § 674(C), and this commission has the power to promulgate the rules and
  regulations that govern the game, including the manner of selecting the
  winning tickets and paying the prizes.  Id. § 674(E)(1)(d).

       The Tri-State Lotto Compact also specifically describes the manner in
  which winners of the game are to be certified and paid.  Id. § 674(L)(1). 
  The legislation states that

         Payment of prizes shall be made . . . to holders of the
         tickets . . . except that payment of any prize drawn may be paid
         to the estate of a deceased prize winner, and except that any
         person pursuant to an appropriate judicial order may be paid the
         prize to which the winner is entitled.

  Id.   By rule, the commission has defined "appropriate judicial order"
  as a court order "in a

 

  proceeding principally based upon an issue other than the assignment
  or conveyance of a lottery prize in which the court makes a
  disposition of the lottery prize as a remedy."  Tri-State Lottery
  Commission Rule 11(d).(FN1)  The issue is whether a court can order defendant
  to pay an assignee of a ticketholder, other than in the circumstances
  authorized by the rule.  Resolution of this issue necessitates that we
  decide whether Rule 11(d) is valid.

       This Court has been traditionally reluctant to substitute our judgment
  for the experience and expertise of an agency.  See In re Agency of Admin.,
  141 Vt. 68, 74,