Webster Street Partnership, Ltd. v. Sheridan
368 N.W.2d 439 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract with a minor is voidable and the minor is only liable for the value of necessaries. An apartment is not a 'necessary' if the minor voluntarily leaves a parental home to which they could return at any time.
Facts:
- On September 18, 1982, Webster Street Partnership, Ltd. entered into a written apartment lease with Matthew Sheridan, age 18, and Pat Wilwerding, age 17.
- Webster Street Partnership knew both tenants were minors at the time the lease was executed (the age of majority was 19).
- Both Sheridan and Wilwerding had voluntarily left their parents' homes and had the ability to return home at any time.
- The tenants paid a $150 security deposit and rent for September and October 1982.
- The tenants failed to pay rent for November 1982.
- On November 5, 1982, Webster Street's agent demanded the rent be paid or the tenants must vacate the premises.
- The tenants vacated the apartment on November 12, 1982.
Procedural Posture:
- Webster Street Partnership, Ltd. sued Matthew Sheridan and Pat Wilwerding in the municipal court of the city of Omaha for unpaid rent and other damages.
- The tenants filed an answer asserting their minority as a defense and cross-petitioned for the return of their security deposit and rent paid.
- The municipal court (trial court) entered a judgment in favor of Webster Street for $630.94.
- The tenants, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the district court for Douglas County (intermediate appellate court).
- The district court modified the municipal court's judgment, ultimately finding that Webster Street owed the tenants $3.25.
- Webster Street Partnership, Ltd., as appellant, then appealed the district court's decision to the Supreme Court of Nebraska.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an apartment lease a contract for a 'necessary' that a minor cannot disaffirm when the minor voluntarily leaves their parents' home but is able to return at any time?
Opinions:
Majority - Krivosha, C. J.
No, an apartment lease is not a contract for a necessary under these circumstances. While minors are liable for the value of necessaries, an apartment is not a necessary if the minor has adequate shelter available to them from a parent or guardian. The general rule is that a contract with a minor is voidable to protect the minor from their own improvidence and the designs of others. The term 'necessary' is flexible and depends on the minor's station in life and actual need. An item is not a necessary if the minor was already supplied with it or has a parent willing and able to supply it. Here, the undisputed testimony showed that both tenants voluntarily left home and could return at any time, meaning they were not in actual need of shelter. Because the apartment was not a necessary, the minors had the right to disaffirm the contract. By vacating the premises after being ordered out and by their attorney's subsequent letter, the tenants effectively disaffirmed the contract. Upon disaffirmance, the contract is rendered void, entitling the minors to the return of all payments made.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the 'necessaries' doctrine in contract law, particularly as it applies to housing for minors. The court establishes that the availability of a parental home is a critical factor in determining whether leased housing constitutes a necessary. This decision creates a significant risk for landlords who rent to minors, as it makes such leases easily voidable unless the landlord can prove the minor was genuinely in need of shelter and had no other options. The ruling reinforces the strong public policy of protecting minors from their contractual improvidence, even at the expense of an adult party who may suffer a financial loss.
