Could Connecticut keep enforcing its blanket ban on assigning lottery prizes after a conflicting statute?

Plain-English summary

In March 1997, Connecticut’s AG advised the Division of Special Revenue that its earlier blanket regulation against assignment of lottery prizes was no longer valid. A later public act had allowed payments in several specified situations, including to a deceased winner’s estate or under an appropriate court order. The division’s regulation admitted no exceptions, so it conflicted with the later statute.

Another public act then repealed the statute containing those exceptions. The AG said that repeal did not bring the invalidated regulation back to life. If the division wanted a rule governing prize assignments under the statutes then in effect, it would have to adopt a new regulation. The opinion addressed the status of the old rule; it did not decide the terms of any replacement.

Lottery administrators at the time

The division could not rely on the earlier blanket prohibition after the intervening statutory conflict. The AG directed it to the ordinary regulation process for a new rule.

Prize winners at the time

The opinion did not promise unrestricted assignment of prizes. It said the old absolute prohibition had been invalidated and had not revived automatically.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Why did the old lottery assignment regulation fail?
A: It banned every assignment while a later statute allowed payments to other people in specified circumstances.

Q: Did repealing the conflicting statute restore the earlier regulation?
A: No. The AG said repeal could not revive a regulation already invalidated by the conflict.

Q: Could the division issue another rule about assignments?
A: The opinion said it could pursue a new regulation under its then-current statutory authority.

Background and statutory framework

The division asked how two public acts affected its preexisting lottery prize rule. The AG applied the principle that a statute prevails over an irreconcilable regulation and then addressed the effect of the later repeal.

Citations and references

Acts and regulation: P.A. 96-236; P.A. 96-212; Conn. Stat. Regs. § 12-568-5(d).

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1997-formal-opinions/george-f-wandrak-division-of-special-revenue-1997006-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-connecticut

Original opinion text

George F. Wandrak, Division of Special Revenue, 1997-006 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

March 20, 1997

George F. Wandrak

Acting Executive Director

Division of Special Revenue

Russell Rd., P.O. Box 11424

Newington, CT 06111

Dear Mr. Wandrak:

This letter responds to your request for an opinion dated January 31, 1997. Briefly stated, your letter relates that since 1993 the Division's regulations have provided: "A prize to which a purchaser may become entitled shall not be assignable." Conn. Stat. Regs. § 12-568-5(d). Until June 6, 1996, the general statutes were silent on the issue of assignment.

On June 6, 1996, the Governor signed P.A. 96-236, which became effective upon passage. That Act added a sentence to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-568(a) that provided:

The right of any person to a prize drawn shall not be assignable, except that payment of any prize drawn may be paid (1) to the estate of a deceased prize winner, (2) to a person pursuant to an appropriate judicial order, or (3) pursuant to subsection (c) of section 53-362(d).

On June 4, 1996, the Governor also signed P.A. 96-212, which repealed Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-568 in its entirety. That Act became effective on July 1, 1996, and thereby repealed the above quoted provision regarding assignments in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-568 (a).

You ask whether "repeal of Section 12-568 by virtue of P.A. 96-236 invalidated Division Regulation 12-568-5(d) prohibiting assignments of lottery winnings while in the hands of the Division and, if so, does the Division have the authority to promulgate a new regulation prohibiting assignments for any lottery payment by the Division?" We conclude that P.A. 96-236 did in fact invalidate Division Regulation 12-568-5(d), and that if the Division wishes to prevent assignments it should promulgate a new regulation.

"[W]hen a statute and a regulation conflict, the statute must prevail. Yanni v. DelPonte, 31 Conn. App. 350, 357, 624 A.2d 1175 (1993)." Commissioner Admin. Serv. v. Gerace, 40 Conn. App. 829, 673 A.2d 1172 (1996). In this case P.A. 96-236 conflicted with Regulation 12-568(d) because the statute permitted assignments in certain instances and the regulation did not permit assignments under any circumstances. When a regulation and a statute are "irreconcilable," the legislature is presumed to have intended to repeal the regulation. See Dugas v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 217 Conn. 631, 641, 587 A.2d 415 (1991); Harper v. Tax Commissioner, 199 Conn.133, 141, 506 A.2d 93 (1986). Therefore, the earlier regulation was invalidated by the later passed statute. Austin v. Housing Authority, 143 Conn. 338, 348-49, 122 A.2d 399 (1956).

Thus, in answer to your question, we believe that Division Regulation 12-568-5(d) was invalidated by the passage of P.A. 96-236. The subsequent repeal of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-568 by P.A. 96-212, including the language contained in Public Act 96-236, could not act to revive an already repealed regulation. If the Division wishes to have a regulation regarding the assignment of awards, it should promulgate a new regulation pursuant to the authority described in the present general statutes.

We hope you find this response helpful.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Gregory T. D'Auria

Assistant Attorney General