## Facts

- A minor’s mother retained an attorney under a one-third contingency-fee agreement to protect the minor’s potential interests as a grandchild-beneficiary of two testamentary trusts.
- The trusts’ future distributions were contingent and uncertain due to possible changes in trust assets and the potential beneficiary pool.
- The attorney filed litigation seeking recognition of the minor as a grandchild and “issue” under the will.
- The litigation ended in a consent decree recognizing the minor as a grandchild and “issue,” potentially entitled to future distributions.
- After reaching majority, the client disaffirmed the fee agreement and asserted infancy, arguing the contract was voidable and the services were not “necessaries.”
- The trial court held the contingency-fee contract voidable, ruled the legal services were not necessaries as a matter of law, but awarded the attorney $60,000 in quantum meruit.
- Both sides appealed: the attorney challenged the infancy/necessaries rulings; the client challenged the quantum meruit award.

## Issues

1. Whether a minor’s contract for legal services can fall within the general class of “necessaries” that defeats a plea of infancy.
2. What analytical framework governs whether particular legal services were necessaries “under all the circumstances” of the minor’s position and condition.
3. Whether, and on what basis, the attorney could recover in quantum meruit given the infancy defense and the necessaries doctrine.

## Decision

- The court reversed the trial court’s categorical ruling that legal services can never be necessaries for a minor.
- The court held that contracts for legal services are within the general classes of items and services that may qualify as necessaries.
- The court remanded for development of evidence and fact findings on whether these legal services were in fact necessaries under the minor’s circumstances.
- The court indicated that if the services are necessaries, recovery is for the reasonable value of the services (quantum meruit), not necessarily the contract percentage, and the existing award required reconsideration in light of the remand.

## Legal Principles

- A minor’s contracts are generally voidable at the minor’s election upon reaching majority.
- An exception exists for “necessaries,” for which the minor is liable on an implied obligation to pay the reasonable value of what was furnished.
- “Necessaries” are not limited to subsistence items; they include goods and services reasonably required for the minor’s position and condition.
- Necessaries analysis proceeds in stages:
  - As a matter of law, whether the type of goods or services may fall within the general class of necessaries.
  - As a matter of fact, whether sufficient evidence exists to permit a determination that the items or services were necessary in the case.
  - As a matter of fact, whether the items or services were actually necessary to the minor’s position and condition.
- When necessaries are established, compensation is measured by reasonable value rather than automatic enforcement of an executory contract’s terms.

## Conclusion

The court held that legal services can qualify as necessaries for a minor, reversed summary judgment based on a categorical exclusion of such services, and remanded for fact findings on necessity and the reasonable value of the attorney’s services.


Zelnick v. Adams, 561 S.E.2d 711 (Va. 2002)