In Domingo v. Mitchell, 257 SW.3d 34, 41-42 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 2008, pet. denied), the plaintiff Domingo sued a co-worker Mitchell, alleging she promised to pay for Domingo's portion of the winning lottery ticket pool. Mitchell obtained summary judgment based in part on the statute of frauds. Id. at 37. The court of appeals held the oral agreement between Domingo and Mitchell did not violate the statute of frauds because "Domingo's financial obligation was her own contractual obligation to reimburse Mitchell and not a promise to answer for the debt of another . . . ." Id. at 42.