The Virginia Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's decision that denied a motion to compel arbitration in a case involving a minor who was injured at Flight Adventure Park. The court ruled that the trial court did not properly determine whether the adult who signed the arbitration agreement had the authority to do so on behalf of the minor. This ruling affects how arbitration agreements involving minors are handled in Virginia.
The case, Flight Fit N Fun (Springfield), LLC, d/b/a Flight Adventure Park v. M.D., by A. Mohamed, her mother, was filed on September 29, 2026, under docket number 1269-25-4. It centers around M.D., a minor, who suffered injuries while at the adventure park. Her mother, Ardo Mohamed, filed a complaint against the park, alleging negligence. The park responded by moving to compel arbitration based on an agreement signed by Mako Barre, an adult who accompanied M.D. to the park.
Flight Adventure Park argued that Barre had the authority to sign the arbitration agreement on M.D.'s behalf. However, M.D. contested this, claiming that Barre was not her legal guardian and did not have the authority to bind her to the arbitration agreement. The trial court sided with M.D., stating that the agreement should not bind the minor.
This case reached the Virginia Court of Appeals after Flight Adventure Park appealed the trial court's decision. The appellate court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case and whether the trial court erred in its ruling.
The court confirmed that it had jurisdiction under the Virginia Uniform Arbitration Act (VUAA), which allows for appeals of orders denying applications to compel arbitration. The court then examined the trial court's reasoning and concluded that it did not apply the correct standard in determining the validity of the arbitration agreement.
The court stated, "If a party challenges the validity of an arbitration agreement by arguing that an agent lacked the authority to enter into the agreement, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual dispute about the agent’s authority." This means that the trial court needed to investigate whether Barre had actual or apparent authority to sign the agreement on M.D.'s behalf.
The court also noted that while arbitration agreements can generally be enforced against minors, the specifics of this case required further examination. The court emphasized that the existence of an agency relationship is a factual question that must be resolved through evidence, which the trial court failed to do.
As a result, the court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the process for determining the validity of arbitration agreements involving minors and the authority of adults who sign on their behalf.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond this specific case. It sets a precedent for how similar cases involving minors and arbitration agreements will be handled in Virginia. Going forward, courts will need to ensure that they conduct evidentiary hearings when there are disputes about an adult's authority to bind a minor to an arbitration agreement.
In terms of what’s next, the case will return to the trial court for further proceedings. The court will need to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Barre had the authority to sign the arbitration agreement for M.D. If the court finds that Barre did have the authority, the case may proceed to arbitration as originally intended. If not, the case may continue in court.