Zelnick v. Adams

606 S.E.2d 843 (2005)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In Zelnick v. Adams 561 S.E.2d 711 (2002), the court held that 'a contract for legal services is within the 'general classes of necessaries' that may defeat a plea of infancy.' The court remanded the case for further proceedings 'on the issue of the factual determination of necessity 'under all the circumstances.' ' The trial court determined the legal services at issue were not ''necessities' under all the circumstances of [the] case.' D introduced evidence that he was living a comfortable lifestyle in a middle-class home and was not 'necessitous.' D claimed the suit filed by P was not necessary because his status as issue for purposes of distributions from the trusts of Jonathan's grandfather, Cecil D. Hylton, Sr. (Mr. Hylton) was settled by a Florida court's paternity order establishing Cecil D. Hylton, Jr. (Sonny) as his biological father. D argued that P's legal services, even if necessary at some point, were not necessary during the time of his minority because he had not been consulted with, or asked to approve, the legal services contract. D contends no legal action was necessary during his minority because distributions under the trusts would not be made until 2014 and 2021, long after he was an adult. D testified the legal proceedings prosecuted by P had harmed D because it exacerbated tensions between D’s and Sonny thus adversely affecting him. P contends the Florida court's paternity order was not determinative of D's status under the trusts. P argued that reliance on the foreign judgment was suspect in view of the long-standing hostility between D’s mother and Sonny regarding D and Sonny's consistent opposition to any recognition or support for him. Mr. Hylton was to place the decision as to D's status as issue for purposes of trust distributions within the purview of the trustees. Despite repeated requests from P and D's mother, the trustees had not confirmed D's status for the purposes of the prospective trust distributions. D's mother also communicated to P that she feared payments were being made to some of Mr. Hylton's grandchildren through the trusts although there appeared to be no mechanism in the trust to permit payments at that time. The trial court's initial determination was that P's legal services, 'the things supplied,' were in fact necessary because D 'would be unable to receive a final answer as to whether or not he would share in his grandfather's estate without court intervention.' The court then found that the provision of legal services at the time provided were not ' 'necessities' under all the circumstances of his case.' It held that 'the delay in litigation for less than two years would not have compromised Jonathan's position.' That P failed to consult D and obtain his approval before filing suit because 'with a minor approaching his majority, he is entitled to at least participate in far-reaching decisions affecting his position and condition in life unless there is some reason requiring immediate legal attention.' The trial court for D sustaining his plea of infancy and denying any recovery to P. P appealed.