Lawsuits when you don't attend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to the WaPo article:

This parent signed the contract without reading all the fine print, on the strength of another parent telling her that they had received financial aid. After she signed, she realized there was no financial aid for preschool. However she received an email from the school saying that enrollment was not complete until they received the deposit, so she thought that not paying the deposit would be sufficient to avoid paying tuition. It was not.

If you read the article, it becomes apparent that this parent accumulated comprehension mistakes. She also looked for county programs for help with tuition, but realized it did not apply to private schools only after receiving an award.

This is what happens to the most vulnerable. They are not able to protect themselves against predatory methods. It's sad that humans prey on other humans.

Personally, I think this parent should be liable for some, but not all, the tuition. The school has shown itself to be extremely harsh against a fragile family. That's a really bad look. I hope public outcry changes the outcome here.

Great summary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a huge piece of information missing from this article. SSFS does not start giving financial aid until Kindergarten. This is stated on their financial aid page and has been for years. This child would have been in PK, so financial aid was never going to be an option. Between the parent's lack of reading the contract before signing, and an apparent lack of financial aid research, I fail to see how the school is at fault.

No doubt that the school is legally correct and that the parent was unsophisticated and naive about how things work. But that doesn't change the school's moral culpability, IMO.

+1 Not to mention she got the advice to apply, and assurances that financial aid would be possible, from a current SSFS family. I'm not saying that family intentionally led her astray, but it's pretty defensible and relatable to me that a youngish mom who grew up in poverty, and who found herself with a bright kid whose needs were not being served in publicly-funded preK, would take the word of someone who presumably was much less naive.

But even if we think this single mom who hadn't finished university yet should have diligently read the contract, AND understood she was on the hook for tuition even though she had not put down a deposit, the question of SSFS pursuing this money is still morally and financially suspect. She has -$140 in her bank account! They will not get their money, and they will ruin a family on the brink of breaking out of poverty in the process.

[Anonymous]

From the article, it appears that SSFS actually went to trial against this mom. How crazy and fiscally irresponsible is that? It should have been pretty easy to figure out she has no money. Is the school planning on tarnishing her future wages? If not, the school wasted 10k or more for its attorney (btw did the attorney think any of this made sense?), ruined another person's life, and further trashed its reputation, this time in the Washington Post.

Someone earlier asked why the parents at the school are responsible. Maybe they aren't directly responsible, but it does seem that anyone still left there should be going to the board and HOS and tell them to knock it off.

[Anonymous]

Yes, the mom should have read before signing, yes, she should have known no financial aid was offered for preK, yes, the judge followed the law.

But we are underestimating the stress she was (and is) under as she tries to support Jordan’s and her daughter. She made a mistake that shouldn’t ruin her life.

But SSFS is horrible for taking this to court. She could end up homeless if her wages are garnished.

Someone in the comments to the article set up a gofundme. I really hope this is resolved and another school gives her daughter a scholarship.

[Anonymous]

Pp - I’m not donating to the gofundme yet as I have no idea if the funds will really get to her. I’m hoping that there will be an official way to donate and help her.

[Anonymous]

And the lawyer for SSFS must be a true bottom'-feeder. Even for debt collection lawyers, there should come a point when you tell your client their case is a foolish waste of money and litigation will only ruin someone's life and trash the client's reputation.

[Anonymous]

Wow, how can the Quakers be affiliated in any way with SSFS?

I think it is completely reasonable to read that enrollment is not complete unless you put down a deposit. She never put down a deposit so a reasonable person world conclude her child wasn’t enrolled.

And how is it reasonable to send an email thay says: The interim head of school responded the first week of September with a decision. Teagan could withdraw from the school. But because of the contract, her mother would remain liable for tuition.

How is that legal? The email should be regardless whether or not Teagan attends you will be liable for tuition.” How does the school get to withdraw her and her mother still has to pay? If they claim she reserved a space and needs to pay for it then why wasn’t that space open to her all year?

Can she declare bankruptcy since she has -$140 in her bank account and owes 27k?

[Anonymous]

Did the school really not ask about the payments until Aug? If she didn’t even make a deposit back in the spring it seems strange or very poor administration that the school didn’t follow up on that or have any communication until August. I feel like there are some key facts the article doesn’t address that may better explain why the case went so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, how can the Quakers be affiliated in any way with SSFS?

I think it is completely reasonable to read that enrollment is not complete unless you put down a deposit. She never put down a deposit so a reasonable person world conclude her child wasn’t enrolled.

And how is it reasonable to send an email thay says: The interim head of school responded the first week of September with a decision. Teagan could withdraw from the school. But because of the contract, her mother would remain liable for tuition.

How is that legal? The email should be regardless whether or not Teagan attends you will be liable for tuition.” How does the school get to withdraw her and her mother still has to pay? If they claim she reserved a space and needs to pay for it then why wasn’t that space open to her all year?

Can she declare bankruptcy since she has -$140 in her bank account and owes 27k?

Probably, but it would basically ruin her life for 7 years. At every step, her life would be harder, and that's for someone who has already overcome quite a bit. I'm not sure most DCUM posters understand how precarious the journey from poverty to even lower middle class is. A million things can derail you, and bankruptcy is absolutely one of them.

[Anonymous]

I know the school is a business, but this area is in economic downturn. I’m sure they can just let 26k go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a huge piece of information missing from this article. SSFS does not start giving financial aid until Kindergarten. This is stated on their financial aid page and has been for years. This child would have been in PK, so financial aid was never going to be an option. Between the parent's lack of reading the contract before signing, and an apparent lack of financial aid research, I fail to see how the school is at fault.

No doubt that the school is legally correct and that the parent was unsophisticated and naive about how things work. But that doesn't change the school's moral culpability, IMO.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know the school is a business, but this area is in economic downturn. I’m sure they can just let 26k go.

Given they were on the brink of financial collapse but not yet telling anyone that fact last Aug/Sep when all this first went down, they probably couldn’t. And maybe she’d have been better off if the school hadn’t been clawed back from closure.

[Anonymous]

How embarrassing for the school, bad bad bad PR

[Anonymous]

Surprised people just focusing on Sandy Springs. For the Landon lawsuit in the article it read as though the family was encouraged by the school to hold a spot for their son even though the school knew the family wouldn’t know if he was going to the baseball training school until after June 1 and then school sued for full tuition when the family decided on baseball school June 12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible behavior by Sandy Springs. People will forever refer to Sandy Springs as the Quaker school that sues poor black people.

What is the point of suing this woman? She's broke. It looks like Sandy Springs wants the sick pleasure of seeing her declare bankruptcy.

I am not Quaker but I work with their national organizations. I won't be surprised if this comes up in meetings next week.

why is suing a Black person any worse or any better than suing a White person? You'd better check your racism.

Why are you so fragile?

LOL, I have been called many things in my day, but this is the first time I have been called fragile! The WAPO story and the majority of DCUM readers portray Blacks as needing special treatment under the law, as if they are somehow less intelligent. How would you feel if some commercial real estate White guy signed a contract so his spoiled entitled lax bro son could go to Landon, but then tried to back out because he didn't understand the contract he signed? Trust me, rich White guys are just as capable of making dumb mistakes as poor Blacks, but race should decide how the law applies to them? We all have two eyes for reading and a brain for thinking, regardless of skin color.

The main issue is not that this is a Black single mother with -140 in her account, it’s that it’s a person with -140 in her account. Ruining someone’s life over not reading a contract is fundamentally different than causing someone (lax bro dad or not) to write a check they would rather not but can easily afford.