## Facts

- In December 1989, Travis Mitchell, age 16, took his car to auto-body mechanic Mark Mizerski for repairs, and Mizerski provided an estimate.
- Mizerski told Travis a $1,000 deposit would be required before repairs began.
- In April 1990, Travis returned with the car and delivered a $1,000 cashier’s check as the deposit.
- During the repair period, Travis and his father, Ted Mitchell, visited the shop to check progress and authorize additional work.
- In July 1990, Travis and Ted visited again; Ted and Mizerski argued about the amount due but agreed on a final amount.
- When Travis picked up the car after the work was completed, he paid the balance with another cashier’s check drawn on an account belonging to his parents.
- Soon after, the car was returned to Mizerski twice to address cracks in the paint.
- In 1991, Travis brought the car back for additional paint work to fix chipped spots and paid the agreed price for that work.
- The next month, Travis and Ted sent Mizerski a letter complaining about the quality of the work and asking how Mizerski intended to address the problems; Mizerski did not respond.
- Ted filed suit on Travis’s behalf seeking disaffirmance of both the initial repair contract and the later paint-repair contract based on Travis’s minority.
- The trial court found Mizerski contracted with Travis (the minor), not with Ted, and found the repairs were not “necessaries.” A district court affirmed, and Mizerski appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported the finding that Mizerski contracted with Travis, the minor, rather than with Ted, the father (or with both).
2. Whether auto-body and paint repairs to a minor’s car were “necessaries,” limiting the minor’s ability to disaffirm.
3. Whether Travis could disaffirm the contracts and obtain restitution despite the fact that the repair services could not be returned in kind.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision upholding the trial court’s judgment.
- The court upheld the finding that the contractual relationship was with Travis, and that Ted’s involvement and the use of parents’ funds to pay did not make Ted a contracting party.
- The court agreed that the auto-body/paint repairs were not necessaries.
- Because the contracts were made by a minor for non-necessaries, Travis could disaffirm and seek recovery of amounts paid consistent with disaffirmance principles.

## Legal Principles

- Contracts made by a minor are generally voidable at the minor’s election, unless an exception applies.
- A minor remains responsible for the reasonable value of “necessaries,” meaning goods or services required for the minor’s maintenance or well-being in light of the minor’s circumstances and what is otherwise provided.
- Whether a parent is a party to a contract is a fact question based on the parties’ dealings; parental presence, assistance, negotiation, or payment from a parent’s account does not by itself make the parent an obligor.
- Disaffirmance typically requires the minor to return what the minor still possesses that is traceable to the transaction, but the inability to return services already performed does not automatically bar disaffirmance of a non-necessaries contract.

## Conclusion

The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for the minor, holding that the repair agreements were contracts with Travis Mitchell, not his father, that the auto-body repairs were not necessaries, and that Travis could disaffirm the contracts and pursue restitutionary relief despite the work being nonreturnable services.


Mitchell v. Mizerski, 1995 WL 118429 (1995)