BLW 201 Study Guide - Final Guide: Contingent Fee, Summary Judgment
26 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
CASE #5
Eddie Toma
Professor Staruck
Business Law 201
9 February 2016
Case 14-3
ZELNICK vs ADAMS
Supreme Court of Virginia, 2002
263 Va 601, 561 S.E.2d 711
FACTS: Jonathan Adams was 9 years old when his grandfather died. His grandfather
(Hylton Sr.) died with a will and his will established certain trusts and provided the
trustees had sole discretion to determine who qualified as “issue” under the will.
Hytlon Sr.’s grandchildren and great grandchildren would potentially receive
distributions from the trusts in the years 2014 and 2021. Jonathans mother had to a
hire a lawyer to claim that Jonathan is entitled to receive distributions from the
charitable trusts. She could not afford an hourly fee and requested legal services on
her son’s behalf on a contingency basis. Zelnick accepted the offer. Both parties
agreed on a one third contingency fee. On May 1997, because of Zelnick’s effort,
Jonathan became entitled to inheritances from his grandfather. In March 1998,
Jonathan’s father brought a bill of complaint to have the contracted voided because
Jonathan was a minor at the time. On April 6, 2000, Jonathan filed a motion for
summary judgement.
ISSUE: Is the contract between Zelnick and Adams void because at the time Jonathan was
a minor?
DECISION: The trial court granted Jonathan’s motion for summary judgement and ruled that
the contingency fee agreement was void.
REASON: The trial court held that the contract was not binding on Jonathan because he was
“in his minority” when the contract was executed. Furthermore, according to the
trial court, the doctrine of necessaries did not apply to the contract
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Jonathan adams was 9 years old when his grandfather died. His grandfather (hylton sr. ) died with a will and his will established certain trusts and provided the trustees had sole discretion to determine who qualified as issue under the will. Hytlon sr. "s grandchildren and great grandchildren would potentially receive distributions from the trusts in the years 2014 and 2021. Jonathans mother had to a hire a lawyer to claim that jonathan is entitled to receive distributions from the charitable trusts. She could not afford an hourly fee and requested legal services on her son"s behalf on a contingency basis. Both parties agreed on a one third contingency fee. Jonathan became entitled to inheritances from his grandfather. Jonathan"s father brought a bill of complaint to have the contracted voided because. On april 6, 2000, jonathan filed a motion for summary judgement. Decision: the trial court granted jonathan"s motion for summary judgement and ruled that the contingency fee agreement was void.
