Friday, February 13, 2026
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Minor Can’t Disaffirm Clause That Disputes Be Arbitrated
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A minor could not, by virtue of an action brought by her father as guardian ad litem, disaffirm an arbitration agreement that had been signed by the mother on the child’s behalf, Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has declared.
The unpublished opinion, filed Tuesday, reverses an order by Orange Superior Court Judge Richard Y. Lee denying arbitration sought by defendant Sabo Eventing LLC, owner of a riding school where the minor, Madison Beverly, had been taking lessons. On July 6, 2022, the girl, then age 7, was injured in dismounting, the mishap being the result of a stirrup allegedly being in disrepair and dangerous.
Lee found an agreement with the school that had been executed by the mother, Jennifer Beverly, to be ineffective as to the arbitration clause in light of Family Code §6710, which provides:
“Except as otherwise provided by statute, a contract of a minor may be disaffirmed by the minor before majority or within a reasonable time afterwards or, in case of the minor’s death within that period, by the minor’s heirs or personal representative.”
Argument on Appeal
Sabo argued on appeal that §6710 “certainly was not intended to allow one grown parent to enter into an unambiguous liability waiver and arbitration agreement on behalf of her minor child, only to permit the other parent to disaffirm that agreement merely by subsequently filing a lawsuit on the minor’s behalf.”
Madison countered:
“Under California law, minors possess the unequivocal right to disaffirm contracts, a protection enshrined in Family Code Section 6710f which serves to shield minors from the consequences of agreements entered without their informed consent. This statutory right is not merely a procedural formality but a substantive safeguard against the exploitation of minors in contractual dealings.”
Gooding’s Opinion
Tuesday’s opinion reversing Lee’s order was authored by Justice Martha K. Gooding, who relied on cases saying that a minor may not disaffirm a parent’s agreement waiving liability. She wrote:
“Given that a minor generally may not disaffirm under section 6710 a release of liability signed by a parent on behalf of the minor, we are not persuaded that an arbitration provision in the same document, which does not extinguish or release claims but merely selects a forum for their determination, may be disaffirmed by the minor under that statute. Here. Jennifer executed the Waiver Agreement, which included the arbitration provision, on behalf of herself and Madison. We therefore conclude Madison may not disaffirm under section 6710 the arbitration provision, and the trial court erred in concluding otherwise.”
On appeal, Madison argued the applicability of Berg v. Taylor, a 2007 Court of Appeal decision from this district’s Div. Seven. Then-Justice Kathryn Doi Todd, now retired, declared that a child actor, Craig Lamar Traylor, “was entitled to and did disaffirm the agreement which, among other things, required him to arbitrate his disputes with” his personal manager.
Not on Point
Gooding said:
“We do not find the personal management services contract in Berg to be analogous. We note, for example, that the ‘significant affirmative responsibilities’ imposed on the minor by the contract in Berg—which included the payment of significant commissions from the income generated by the minor’s acting work—are not present in the Waiver Agreement here.”
In Berg, note was made that Craig was not a third party beneficiary of the contract, but a principal, and Lee pointed out that Madison, likewise, is a principal. Gooding observed that Craig’s status as a principal “was only one of multiple facts” relied upon in Berg and declared that “Madison’s status as a principal versus a third party beneficiary of the Waiver Agreement is not controlling.”
The opinion instructs that on remand, the Superior Court is to act on the unaddressed contention by Madison that Sabo has, through its conduct, waived any right to arbitration.
The case is Beverly v. Sabo Eventing, G064913.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company