I'm pretty tired and drunk, but this is the basic premise for my partnership analysis. There were other finer points on Addies Daughter, the trust, Cal's assignment/delegation etc. but this is the general foundation:

Formation of Partnership:

A FL partnership is when 2 or more persons carry on as co-owners an enterprise for profit, whether they intend to form a partnership or not

Under these facts, Addie and Laurie agreed to each contribute in the purchasing of lottery tickets with an express intention to split whatever winnings (profit) that may result. Laurie may contend that there was never an intent to split profits, however when Addie sent her a share of the smaller winnings, Laurie promptly cashed the checks. This would suggest that there was an intention between the parties to split profits and thus the existence of a partnership.

In Florida, factors considering the formation of a partnership include: - capital investment - (capital contribution not required) - right to control may be enough even if control is never excercised - person who is entitled to receive a share of firm's PROFITS presumed to be partner by "prima facie evidence" - no presumption for: wages, rent, repayment of debt, interest on loan, gross receipts

Under these facts, Laurie was entitled to and received profits and thus is presumed to be a partner by prime facie evidence

Dissolution of Partnership:

Partnership for term - if set term, partner's quitting before term has expired is breach and partner could be liable for damages

Under these facts, the parties stated that the partnership would be dissolved after they won the jackpot, which would indicate that this was a partnership for term. If Laurie admits the point that there was a partnership, she may contend that it ceased to exists immediately upon the winning of the jackpot and thus Addie should not be entitled to any of the winnings. However, Addie will argue that the jackpot would be a partnership asset and should be indluded in the winding down of partnership assets upon dissolution.

Cal’s Claim: 

Purported Partners: If no partnership was formed, parties may still be liable as purported partners to protect reasonable reliance by 3rd parties.

Under these facts, Cal may be entitled to recover as he was under the impression that Addie and Laurie were partners when he agreed to perform the investment planning work for the two.

Ethical Considerations:

Florida Rules of Professional Responsibility Rule 4-5.4 states in part that a lawyer shall not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law.

*Under these facts, Laurie and Addie stipulated on multiple occasions that a facet of the partnership would include Laurie performing legal work while Addie provides investment planning services.  This would be a violation of the FL PR code and a certain ethical concern for Laurie.*