Lawsuits when you don't attend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why the school would expend money on lawyers to sue an individual that clearly doesn't have the money?

That's what I don't understand in this situation. There are tons of people that get judgments against them and they still just don't pay. I am fairly certain only the government can garnish wages...not private groups in a lawsuit.

The Landon family profiled is different...that family clearly has the money.

Maybe the law firm had a big retainer. Maybe they just want to make an example of her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t sign contracts if you can’t pay your bills.

Unsophisticated people are not really able to understand a contract like that especially if it is very unintuitive. The mom says that she assumed it would be something more like a month or two of tuition. She also thought that it would be reasonable to make her acceptance contingent on the aid package - and the fact that they made her sign the agreement without knowing the aid was pretty exploitative. Even colleges don’t do it that way.

The mom said that she didn't read the contract. It doesn't matter if it was "unintuitive" if she didn't read it. She assumed it said something that it didn't. Not sure how that's the school's fault.

The article also said that there was an opportunity for her to withdraw after the financial aid decision, but that she didn't do so. Again, not sure why the school should be responsible for that.

Because the premise of such contracts that bind you to pay for the whole year, even if you do not attend, or pay a deposit, is exploitative in the extreme. The parent's mistake highlights the root of the problem, which is not of her making, but rather of the greedy and grasping maneuvers that many private schools resort to.

If you think about this honestly for about 3 second, you should be able to figure out why it is entirely appropriate for someone who accepts a spot at a school to be liable for the entire year's tuition.

Or maybe you won't be able to. But that's on you, not the nature of the contract. It's not a difficult concept.

But it is incumbent on the school -- the party with more information, experience, and power -- to make that abundantly explicit, not just buried in the small print of the contract. A school that is serious about diversity needs to recognize that means prospective parents will have a diverse understanding of how contracts work and ability to read dense legalese. It's also the school's job to be explicit about what constitutes acceptance of the contract -- because it seems reasonable to think that not paying the required deposit means that the contract wasn't accepted.

I'm glad that the school has not only committed to making things right with this family but is going to consider better communication about its contract, keeping in mind that not everyone has the same background and knowledge.

This is your aspirational take on what should happen, not an accurate statement of the law.

And once again, you have no idea whether it is buried in the contract or not, because she didn't read it.

PP wasn't trying to be accurate re: the law, they were trying to show that unless you want to be seen as the aggressor, you leave it be.

Right. The school is free to behave like this; and free to then go out of business when everyone is universally appalled and pulls donations and students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t sign contracts if you can’t pay your bills.

Unsophisticated people are not really able to understand a contract like that especially if it is very unintuitive. The mom says that she assumed it would be something more like a month or two of tuition. She also thought that it would be reasonable to make her acceptance contingent on the aid package - and the fact that they made her sign the agreement without knowing the aid was pretty exploitative. Even colleges don’t do it that way.

The mom said that she didn't read the contract. It doesn't matter if it was "unintuitive" if she didn't read it. She assumed it said something that it didn't. Not sure how that's the school's fault.

The article also said that there was an opportunity for her to withdraw after the financial aid decision, but that she didn't do so. Again, not sure why the school should be responsible for that.

Because the premise of such contracts that bind you to pay for the whole year, even if you do not attend, or pay a deposit, is exploitative in the extreme. The parent's mistake highlights the root of the problem, which is not of her making, but rather of the greedy and grasping maneuvers that many private schools resort to.

If you think about this honestly for about 3 second, you should be able to figure out why it is entirely appropriate for someone who accepts a spot at a school to be liable for the entire year's tuition.

Or maybe you won't be able to. But that's on you, not the nature of the contract. It's not a difficult concept.

But it is incumbent on the school -- the party with more information, experience, and power -- to make that abundantly explicit, not just buried in the small print of the contract. A school that is serious about diversity needs to recognize that means prospective parents will have a diverse understanding of how contracts work and ability to read dense legalese. It's also the school's job to be explicit about what constitutes acceptance of the contract -- because it seems reasonable to think that not paying the required deposit means that the contract wasn't accepted.

I'm glad that the school has not only committed to making things right with this family but is going to consider better communication about its contract, keeping in mind that not everyone has the same background and knowledge.

Agree! Legally the school has the right to enforce the contract but morally it was in the wrong, which is not nothing for a school that (I assume) is trying to g to instill good values on its students. The fact that the school backtracked only when it got bad press does not make them look better (although I’m happy for the family involved)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t sign contracts if you can’t pay your bills.

Unsophisticated people are not really able to understand a contract like that especially if it is very unintuitive. The mom says that she assumed it would be something more like a month or two of tuition. She also thought that it would be reasonable to make her acceptance contingent on the aid package - and the fact that they made her sign the agreement without knowing the aid was pretty exploitative. Even colleges don’t do it that way.

The mom said that she didn't read the contract. It doesn't matter if it was "unintuitive" if she didn't read it. She assumed it said something that it didn't. Not sure how that's the school's fault.

The article also said that there was an opportunity for her to withdraw after the financial aid decision, but that she didn't do so. Again, not sure why the school should be responsible for that.

Because the premise of such contracts that bind you to pay for the whole year, even if you do not attend, or pay a deposit, is exploitative in the extreme. The parent's mistake highlights the root of the problem, which is not of her making, but rather of the greedy and grasping maneuvers that many private schools resort to.

If you think about this honestly for about 3 second, you should be able to figure out why it is entirely appropriate for someone who accepts a spot at a school to be liable for the entire year's tuition.

Or maybe you won't be able to. But that's on you, not the nature of the contract. It's not a difficult concept.

But it is incumbent on the school -- the party with more information, experience, and power -- to make that abundantly explicit, not just buried in the small print of the contract. A school that is serious about diversity needs to recognize that means prospective parents will have a diverse understanding of how contracts work and ability to read dense legalese. It's also the school's job to be explicit about what constitutes acceptance of the contract -- because it seems reasonable to think that not paying the required deposit means that the contract wasn't accepted.

I'm glad that the school has not only committed to making things right with this family but is going to consider better communication about its contract, keeping in mind that not everyone has the same background and knowledge.

This is your aspirational take on what should happen, not an accurate statement of the law.

And once again, you have no idea whether it is buried in the contract or not, because she didn't read it.

The PP I replied to said that the school's actions were "appropriate." I am saying they were not. Discretion is an important part of rule enforcement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t sign contracts if you can’t pay your bills.

Unsophisticated people are not really able to understand a contract like that especially if it is very unintuitive. The mom says that she assumed it would be something more like a month or two of tuition. She also thought that it would be reasonable to make her acceptance contingent on the aid package - and the fact that they made her sign the agreement without knowing the aid was pretty exploitative. Even colleges don’t do it that way.

The mom said that she didn't read the contract. It doesn't matter if it was "unintuitive" if she didn't read it. She assumed it said something that it didn't. Not sure how that's the school's fault.

The article also said that there was an opportunity for her to withdraw after the financial aid decision, but that she didn't do so. Again, not sure why the school should be responsible for that.

Because the premise of such contracts that bind you to pay for the whole year, even if you do not attend, or pay a deposit, is exploitative in the extreme. The parent's mistake highlights the root of the problem, which is not of her making, but rather of the greedy and grasping maneuvers that many private schools resort to.

If you think about this honestly for about 3 second, you should be able to figure out why it is entirely appropriate for someone who accepts a spot at a school to be liable for the entire year's tuition.

Or maybe you won't be able to. But that's on you, not the nature of the contract. It's not a difficult concept.

But it is incumbent on the school -- the party with more information, experience, and power -- to make that abundantly explicit, not just buried in the small print of the contract. A school that is serious about diversity needs to recognize that means prospective parents will have a diverse understanding of how contracts work and ability to read dense legalese. It's also the school's job to be explicit about what constitutes acceptance of the contract -- because it seems reasonable to think that not paying the required deposit means that the contract wasn't accepted.

I'm glad that the school has not only committed to making things right with this family but is going to consider better communication about its contract, keeping in mind that not everyone has the same background and knowledge.

This is your aspirational take on what should happen, not an accurate statement of the law.

And once again, you have no idea whether it is buried in the contract or not, because she didn't read it.

PP wasn't trying to be accurate re: the law, they were trying to show that unless you want to be seen as the aggressor, you leave it be.

Right. The school is free to behave like this; and free to then go out of business when everyone is universally appalled and pulls donations and students.

I think this is the crux. The school was within its legal rights, given Maryland's absurd laws as regards private school contracts in particular. However, the parent body and the community at large is within its rights to point out the disconnect between the school's stated values and its actions. SSFS is competing in a market, and they claim to offer a unique product -- high quality education infused with Quaker values.

If they don't actually behave in a way that builds trust with their parent community, and that includes acting in accordance with their stated values, then the parent community, alumni, and the larger community can and will withdraw support.

I also want to really underscore what a PP said about a school's commitment to diversity. SSFS prides itself on "Equity, Justice, and Belonging." They have three staff working on the issue, and it's a selling point for a lot of parents. Within that frame, there are going to be parents who have less understanding of contract law, and with less exposure to highly transactional arrangements. You can't claim to center an approach of "Letting our Lives Speak" while simultaneously retreating behind legalese when someone is confused or misinformed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why the school would expend money on lawyers to sue an individual that clearly doesn't have the money?

That's what I don't understand in this situation. There are tons of people that get judgments against them and they still just don't pay. I am fairly certain only the government can garnish wages...not private groups in a lawsuit.

The Landon family profiled is different...that family clearly has the money.

That's what I don't understand. Why go after someone who doesn't have the money? It makes no sense. Spending money on lawyers to not get any money in return?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t sign contracts if you can’t pay your bills.

Unsophisticated people are not really able to understand a contract like that especially if it is very unintuitive. The mom says that she assumed it would be something more like a month or two of tuition. She also thought that it would be reasonable to make her acceptance contingent on the aid package - and the fact that they made her sign the agreement without knowing the aid was pretty exploitative. Even colleges don’t do it that way.

The mom said that she didn't read the contract. It doesn't matter if it was "unintuitive" if she didn't read it. She assumed it said something that it didn't. Not sure how that's the school's fault.

The article also said that there was an opportunity for her to withdraw after the financial aid decision, but that she didn't do so. Again, not sure why the school should be responsible for that.

People typically don’t see the relationship between a religious private school and a lower income parent as a pure caveat emptor predatory situation where the school exerts all its lawful leverage to its pure advantage. Also even though I am a lawyer I was surprised to learn that there is strong precedent in Maryland that private schools have zero duty to mitigate. Every other context I know of the contracting parties have a duty to mitigate. She was not at all crazy to belie be it would be like the daycares she worked at (one or two months, a reasonable length of time to cover the gap in finding a new student). Also she was not unreasonable to think they were already on notice and had a duty to mitigate. This is different from pulling a child mid-year where it might be tough to get another family.

You keep talking about a duty to mitigate like it is a magic elixir, when it has very little to do with the factual predicates of this case. It has nothing to do with the mother's understanding of the contract, and its terms. It has nothing to do with her failure to comply with the notice requirements. Perhaps it played a role in the outcome of the litigation, but only *after* it was established that she was in breach.

Or are you seriously suggesting that the mother based her decisions and actions on her belief that the school had a duty to mitigate?

[Anonymous]

I blame the lawyers. And I also blame the senior administrators of the schools.
A good lawyer would have urged the school to settle. It's so obvious the mother didn't have the funds. Moreover, a good attorney would have explained to SSFS the terrible optics of a Quaker school going after a poor Black single mother.

[Anonymous]

Just curious if when applying to private schools in the DC area, is it possible to ask for their contract in advance of enrollment? Like during fall visits etc? Or at least their policy when students are counseled out/move etc?

[Anonymous]

Reading this made me sick to my stomach. I was relieved to eventually read SSFS ultimately decided not to collect. Imagine just wanting to provide your DC a great educational opportunity but being unsophisticated on the ins and outs of how it all works and ending up in this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just curious if when applying to private schools in the DC area, is it possible to ask for their contract in advance of enrollment? Like during fall visits etc? Or at least their policy when students are counseled out/move etc?

That's probably not a question you want to ask during the admissions process. If you are concerned about either happening, get tuition insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t sign contracts if you can’t pay your bills.

Unsophisticated people are not really able to understand a contract like that especially if it is very unintuitive. The mom says that she assumed it would be something more like a month or two of tuition. She also thought that it would be reasonable to make her acceptance contingent on the aid package - and the fact that they made her sign the agreement without knowing the aid was pretty exploitative. Even colleges don’t do it that way.

The mom said that she didn't read the contract. It doesn't matter if it was "unintuitive" if she didn't read it. She assumed it said something that it didn't. Not sure how that's the school's fault.

The article also said that there was an opportunity for her to withdraw after the financial aid decision, but that she didn't do so. Again, not sure why the school should be responsible for that.

People typically don’t see the relationship between a religious private school and a lower income parent as a pure caveat emptor predatory situation where the school exerts all its lawful leverage to its pure advantage. Also even though I am a lawyer I was surprised to learn that there is strong precedent in Maryland that private schools have zero duty to mitigate. Every other context I know of the contracting parties have a duty to mitigate. She was not at all crazy to belie be it would be like the daycares she worked at (one or two months, a reasonable length of time to cover the gap in finding a new student). Also she was not unreasonable to think they were already on notice and had a duty to mitigate. This is different from pulling a child mid-year where it might be tough to get another family.

You keep talking about a duty to mitigate like it is a magic elixir, when it has very little to do with the factual predicates of this case. It has nothing to do with the mother's understanding of the contract, and its terms. It has nothing to do with her failure to comply with the notice requirements. Perhaps it played a role in the outcome of the litigation, but only *after* it was established that she was in breach.

Or are you seriously suggesting that the mother based her decisions and actions on her belief that the school had a duty to mitigate?

Of course it has everything to do with the case. Most people reasonably think that a school could fill that spot and reduce its damages. That’s the way it works with other types of contracts even the average person is familiar with, most notably, rental leases. And as this mom said, other preschools. It’s not intuitive at all to know that the private school industry has weaseled its way out of this basic of contract law. MD legislators need to act to correct this.

[Anonymous]

This situation is sad, but a few thoughts:

** However unfair it may feel, the mother should have read the contract closely and was obligated. That said, the article does not indicate how proactive SSFS was in communicating with her, which could have been helpful. Nobody wants to go to court (except lawyers), so I would hope a school would be more aggressive in avoiding it.

** This also feels different than a situation where a family agrees to a slot and then wants to change b/c they get into another school (not this situation) vs. the ability to pay (still an obligation, of course, but very different circumstance).

** Blaming a previous administration/management is Crisis PR 101 — they’re responsible but confident the new admin was aware of pending suits, liabilities, etc. They didn’t just find out.

** For all the applause to the new admin, I suspect a call from the Washington Post played a significant role in their newfound generosity (similar to when the NYT or WSJ calls an airline on a customers’ behalf when they don't get a refund etc) or it never would have gone to court in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading this made me sick to my stomach. I was relieved to eventually read SSFS ultimately decided not to collect. Imagine just wanting to provide your DC a great educational opportunity but being unsophisticated on the ins and outs of how it all works and ending up in this situation.

I didn't see this in the article. Where did you find out the SSFS will not collect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading this made me sick to my stomach. I was relieved to eventually read SSFS ultimately decided not to collect. Imagine just wanting to provide your DC a great educational opportunity but being unsophisticated on the ins and outs of how it all works and ending up in this situation.

I didn't see this in the article. Where did you find out the SSFS will not collect?

I few pages back on this thread someone shared an email sent to families from new HOS saying they would not collect.