Lawsuits when you don't attend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email sent out to parents tonight from new HoS

I want to make you aware of an article in the Washington Post today that reports how Sandy Spring Friends School pursued legal action for non-payment against a preschool parent who accepted, but ultimately did not enroll, at our school.

Though financial stewardship is a priority for our school, the approach taken to resolve this matter at the time by the prior administration was misguided, and does not reflect the community values of SSFS. I have contacted the parent to apologize on behalf of the School, and to let her know that SSFS will not be seeking any tuition payments from her.

While the staff members involved in pursuing legal action in this case are no longer employed at the School, Sandy Spring Friends School is now reviewing how and why the decision to pursue this legal action was made. In the coming weeks, I will also be studying and revising admissions contract procedures and business office practices.

As I begin my new leadership of the School, I am committed to ensuring that Sandy Spring Friends School’s practices align with our founding Quaker values.

Well well well, The Washington Post still has a purpose, despite its political cowardice. Excellent news!!!

So the hos doing the 180 is because of the wapo article? Letting her go cause the truth came out? If she hadn’t managed to get to post to publish then what? He’d have let the court bankrupt her?

It can’t be that the new hos only just heard what’s going on like the rest of us, through an article?

This place is such a joke. And so fake with their Quaker values

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email sent out to parents tonight from new HoS

I want to make you aware of an article in the Washington Post today that reports how Sandy Spring Friends School pursued legal action for non-payment against a preschool parent who accepted, but ultimately did not enroll, at our school.

Though financial stewardship is a priority for our school, the approach taken to resolve this matter at the time by the prior administration was misguided, and does not reflect the community values of SSFS. I have contacted the parent to apologize on behalf of the School, and to let her know that SSFS will not be seeking any tuition payments from her.

While the staff members involved in pursuing legal action in this case are no longer employed at the School, Sandy Spring Friends School is now reviewing how and why the decision to pursue this legal action was made. In the coming weeks, I will also be studying and revising admissions contract procedures and business office practices.

As I begin my new leadership of the School, I am committed to ensuring that Sandy Spring Friends School’s practices align with our founding Quaker values.

Well well well, The Washington Post still has a purpose, despite its political cowardice. Excellent news!!!

So the hos doing the 180 is because of the wapo article? Letting her go cause the truth came out? If she hadn’t managed to get to post to publish then what? He’d have let the court bankrupt her?

It can’t be that the new hos only just heard what’s going on like the rest of us, through an article?

This place is such a joke. And so fake with their Quaker values

Your criticism of SSFS as having fake Quaker values is funny given how gleeful you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Email sent out to parents tonight from new HoS

I want to make you aware of an article in the Washington Post today that reports how Sandy Spring Friends School pursued legal action for non-payment against a preschool parent who accepted, but ultimately did not enroll, at our school.

Though financial stewardship is a priority for our school, the approach taken to resolve this matter at the time by the prior administration was misguided, and does not reflect the community values of SSFS. I have contacted the parent to apologize on behalf of the School, and to let her know that SSFS will not be seeking any tuition payments from her.

While the staff members involved in pursuing legal action in this case are no longer employed at the School, Sandy Spring Friends School is now reviewing how and why the decision to pursue this legal action was made. In the coming weeks, I will also be studying and revising admissions contract procedures and business office practices.

As I begin my new leadership of the School, I am committed to ensuring that Sandy Spring Friends School’s practices align with our founding Quaker values.

I don't think it's enough that they will not be seeking financial payments. SSFA needs to hire that same lawyer, or some other one, to have the suit dismissed with prejudice (or whatever the correct legal terminology is) so that no future SSFS administration can change course and attempt to collect AND so that this mom can have this ridiculous judgement removed. Not seeking to collect is very different than not ever being able to legally collect (or having that hefty judgment out there against her). I hope someone advises her to request this of the school.

[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?

I never considered doing so, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. In fact, after reading this, seems like it's one of the first questions all prospective families should be asking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sidwell, a real Quaker school, should reach out to this mom and offer her child a full ride https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/03/private-schools-lawsuits-families/

First, I doubt Sidwell would make such a pity offer. Second, the two schools are nowhere near each other. I doubt this Maryland mother would drive an hour each way to send her kid to a preschool in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are currently 9 board members (per the website.) 3 of them are new. 3 of them abstained from voting for the closure and were instrumental is guaranteeing the school remain open. This isn’t necessarily to contradict your point, which is correct that the board has not switched over 100%, but to make the point that a majority of them have the best interest of the school at heart, they fought to keep the school open - that is an irrefutable fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good for the current leadership for doing the right thing.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You can “blame the lawyer” for just about all of SSFS’s recent problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email sent out to parents tonight from new HoS

I want to make you aware of an article in the Washington Post today that reports how Sandy Spring Friends School pursued legal action for non-payment against a preschool parent who accepted, but ultimately did not enroll, at our school.

Though financial stewardship is a priority for our school, the approach taken to resolve this matter at the time by the prior administration was misguided, and does not reflect the community values of SSFS. I have contacted the parent to apologize on behalf of the School, and to let her know that SSFS will not be seeking any tuition payments from her.

While the staff members involved in pursuing legal action in this case are no longer employed at the School, Sandy Spring Friends School is now reviewing how and why the decision to pursue this legal action was made. In the coming weeks, I will also be studying and revising admissions contract procedures and business office practices.

As I begin my new leadership of the School, I am committed to ensuring that Sandy Spring Friends School’s practices align with our founding Quaker values.

Well well well, The Washington Post still has a purpose, despite its political cowardice. Excellent news!!!

So the hos doing the 180 is because of the wapo article? Letting her go cause the truth came out? If she hadn’t managed to get to post to publish then what? He’d have let the court bankrupt her?

It can’t be that the new hos only just heard what’s going on like the rest of us, through an article?

This place is such a joke. And so fake with their Quaker values

Your criticism of SSFS as having fake Quaker values is funny given how gleeful you are.

I never said I was running an institution based on Quaker values. So you can make fun of my incredulous ness at ssfs behavior all you want. Doesn’t make ssfs any better a Quaker institution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sidwell, a real Quaker school, should reach out to this mom and offer her child a full ride https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/03/private-schools-lawsuits-families/

First, I doubt Sidwell would make such a pity offer. Second, the two schools are nowhere near each other. I doubt this Maryland mother would drive an hour each way to send her kid to a preschool in DC.

Claiming that Sidwell has “a preschool in DC” is telling on yourself.

[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.

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?

lol no. But you sure do have poor reading comprehension.

[Anonymous]

I also blame the SSFS admissions office. They need to do a much, much better job of explaining to parents what it means to sign a contract of admission - especially for parents who are brand new to the private school system. Our contract (with a different private school) is 18 pages long. Who actually reads all the fine print?

[Anonymous]

All the leadership turning over is not because the board or community decided they needed to change course. Every single section head and the HOS and the head of Admissions and Development left in an 18 month span of time.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone explain why private schools in MD don’t have a duty to mitigate, which is a pretty standard contractual obligation? Are these considered liquidated damages?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why private schools in MD don’t have a duty to mitigate, which is a pretty standard contractual obligation? Are these considered liquidated damages?

There was a case by the Barrie School a decade + ago that established that this was liquidated damages and therefore there is no mitigation. All common law and total bullsh*t that should be corrected by the legislature.