In today’s real estate market—defined by rising prices, tightening credit, and limited inventory—alternative transaction models have emerged alongside traditional home sales. One such model is being implemented by Denver-based FulHouse, Inc. (fulhouse.io), which combines elements of real estate transactions with sweepstakes-style entry systems. Under the FulHouse model, consumers have the opportunity to “purchase” a home for as little as five dollars.
FulHouse describes its platform as allowing participants to enter drawings for residential properties. The platform allows homeowners to list a property and set an escrow goal representing the amount they would seek to receive from a traditional sale. Members of the public may then purchase entries into a drawing tied to the property. If the escrow goal is not met, the drawing does not occur, and participants may select from options such as refunds or alternative uses of their payment, including charitable donations. If the goal is met, a winner is selected through a random drawing process, with funds described as being handled through third-party escrow and payment services.
Legal Considerations
Promotional sweepstakes and prize-based contests have long been used in real estate marketing. However, FulHouse’s sweepstakes mechanism appears to function as the core transaction structure rather than as a promotional tool. The legal viability of such a model is questionable and centers mainly on the distinction between a lawful sweepstakes and prohibited gambling.
In most U.S. jurisdictions, including Colorado, gambling is generally defined by three elements: (1) consideration (the risking of money or a thing of value); (2) chance; and (3) the possibility of gain. Sniezek v. Colo. Dept. of Revenue, 113 P.3d 1280, 1282 (Colo. App. 2005). Sweepstakes are typically structured to remove the element of consideration, often by providing a free alternative method of entry.
To enter into a drawing, FulHouse includes a free mail-in entry option, apparently intended to address the consideration requirement. However, case law suggests that the presence of a free entry method may not be sufficient to eliminate consideration in all circumstances. In Sniezek, for example, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that a system primarily designed around the sale of entries for prizes could constitute illegal gambling, even where free entry options existed. The court emphasized the overall structure and primary purpose of the business in reaching its conclusion, holding that because the primary purpose of the business was the sale of entries to prize-based drawings, consideration was not eliminated solely by the availability of free alternative measures of entry.
Additional questions arise regarding consideration from the seller’s perspective. The platform’s structure contemplates that the escrow goal for entry purchases collectively corresponds to the value of the listed property. Colorado courts have not directly addressed whether receiving property value through such a system would constitute consideration in a gambling analysis. Aside from gambling considerations, the transfer of real property as a prize introduces real property transaction complexities as well. These may include title transfer requirements, compliance with recording statutes, treatment of existing liens and encumbrances, and tax implications. Anyone desiring to participate in a drawing will first want to determine, at the very least, whether existing liens on the property will be paid off from the proceeds of the drawing, whether the winner will receive an owner’s policy of title insurance, and examine any exclusions or exceptions to such policy.