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.

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.

[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.

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.

Let me guess - you're a first or second year associate, at a medium sized firm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Are you in PR?

[Anonymous]

I bet SAAS is grateful for this distraction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The woman profiled got incredibly unlucky. A school not in financial turmoil may have let her slide but she happened to be working with a school in trouble and who can’t afford to lose a single dollar “owed”. Legally I understand, though ethically it’s awful. Maybe this article helps her find a Good Samaritan willing to help her.

The school must have paid at least $10k in legal fees, and now the harm to its reputation is going to be much more severe. It’s likely that the school will never raise funds the way it did this year again and will close. so good job guys I guess?

As I wrote weeks ago on one of the Sandy Springs threads, that school is probably not going to survive. Schools in that predicament have a tiny chance of surviving to begin with, but with the various bad decisions made on the financial front, it shows that their administration isn't very skilled in financial matters. The bad press is probably not going to sink them further, because such news aren't, by their nature, widely disseminated (even with an article in the Post). But of course it doesn't help with that very small number of families who were considering that school and who have read that article.

And I agree with the general sentiment that even though it may be legal, it doesn't seem fair that a family can be on the hook for an entire year of tuition even when they did not pay a deposit and did not attend. The contracts and their early deadlines are indeed predatory. DC private schools exist in a bubble where their services are in such high demand that they can force families into these types of financially abusive situations. It's not right.

It’s really unfortunate these kinds of really poorly informed comments floating around. It’s just not true that the school is in more jeopardy, and this situation happened a year ago. What should be the discussion is the horrible click bait reporting by this reporter who didn’t even get a quote from the school— which doesn’t even have one, not one remaining leadership including the board that was there when this decision was made. A complete sweep of everyone in charge. This is not the same school and the audacity you have to trash it with your personal opinion but no facts is a good example of why society can’t rise.

This is untrue. The composition of the board is not 100% changed.

[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?

Not the PP, but I actually DO think that a parent whose work experience is primarily at the YMCA would expect a school to mitigate harm, because that's what the Y would do in that circumstance. Again, she never put down a deposit. I think a lot of folks would think they are not on the hook if they never put down a deposit.