Young v. Weaver
2003 WL 22928793, 883 So. 2d 234 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract for lodging is not a contract for a "necessity" and is therefore voidable by a minor if the minor's parents remain willing and able to provide housing. For a good or service to be a necessity, the minor must be in actual need and have no other available source of supply.
Facts:
- Kim Young, an 18-year-old minor under Alabama law, had lived with her parents her entire life but decided she wanted to move out and be on her own.
- On September 20, 2001, Young and a friend, also a minor, signed a lease agreement with Phillip Weaver for an apartment without an adult guarantor.
- At the time of signing the lease, Young was employed full-time.
- Young lived in the apartment and paid her share of the rent for approximately two months.
- Near the end of November 2001, Young moved out of the apartment and returned to live with her parents, who had kept her room for her and were willing to have her back at any time.
- Young stopped making rent payments after she moved back to her parents' home.
- While she lived in the apartment, Young's dog caused $270 in damage.
Procedural Posture:
- Phillip Weaver filed a claim against Kim Young in the Small Claims Court of Tuscaloosa County for unpaid rent and property damage.
- The small claims court ruled in favor of Weaver, awarding him $1,370 in damages.
- Young, the defendant, appealed the decision to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court for a trial de novo.
- The circuit court also entered a judgment in favor of Weaver, the plaintiff, awarding him $1,095.
- Young, as the appellant, now appeals the circuit court's judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an apartment lease qualify as a contract for a "necessity" that is binding on a minor when the minor voluntarily leaves her parents' home, and her parents remain willing and able to provide her with lodging?
Opinions:
Majority - The court's opinion (per curiam)
No. A lease for an apartment does not constitute a 'necessity' for a minor who can receive adequate housing from their parents. Generally, contracts made by minors are voidable. An exception exists for contracts for necessaries, such as food, clothing, and lodging, but only when the minor is in actual need of them. A minor is not in actual need if they have a parent or guardian who is willing and able to supply them. In this case, Young's parents were willing and able to provide her with lodging, and she returned to their home after vacating the apartment. Therefore, the apartment was not a necessity, and Young had the right to disaffirm the lease contract.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'necessaries doctrine' as it applies to minors' contracts for housing. It establishes that lodging is not a 'necessity' per se; its status depends on the minor's specific circumstances. The ruling reinforces the strong public policy of protecting minors from improvident contracts, even when the minor is employed and appears independent. It places the burden on landlords and other parties to ascertain whether a minor is genuinely in need of lodging before entering into a binding contract, as the contract remains voidable if the minor has a parental home to which they can return.
