People with money being scared of a private school that's typically run by sleazy people is crazy. They probably won't sue and if they do make sure to drag them through the mud.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reputation issue. Since most families are relatively well off, they would prefer to pay the full year rather than going to a trial.

Having said that, private schools don’t really care if the family is poor. They just want their money:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/08/private-school-lawsuit-sandy-springs-families/

It's a reputational issue for the schools, not for the families. SSFS sued this mother when it was on the verge of closing due to collapsing finances. It ultimately forgave the debt because of how bad the publicity was for it. But SSFS evidently didn't have a wait pool of tons of eager, full-pay families. Otherwise, it wouldn't have come close to closing.

That’s same WaPo article said it was not uncommon for schools to go after people who break their contracts, regardless of the reason:
Private institutions filed at least 140 cases over the past decade seeking more than $1.6 million in debt, The Post found in a search of court databases in the District and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs. Among them: suits against the mother of a kindergartner dismissed after a week of school for “extreme incidents”; a father who signed an enrollment contract but withdrew his son ahead of the academic year because of alleged bullying; and a couple who moved out of state.
Schools pointed to the contracts signed by parents, which generally state that they are binding after a spring or summer deadline, at which point they hold parents to a full year of tuition. In court paperwork and hearings, their attorneys argued that administrators relied on commitments from families while budgeting and hiring for the school year, and the loss of expected tuition put them in a bind.

years
140 cases over ten years throughout the entire metro region is a tiny amount, particularly considering the high transience of our population. To me, it shows that schools rarely sue families for tuition. I strongly suspect the overwhelming majority of schools going after families are smaller, less prestigious ones that will be legitimately damaged by the disenrollment. I would bet less than 5 (maybe even 0) involve schools like Sidwell, GDS, Maret, NCS, St. Albans, Bullis, and Potomac have ever sued a family to recover tuition. This because -- I explain again -- that a school is going to have to show that they made efforts to mitigate damages. If they can fill the seat with a full-pay family waiting in the wings, they're not going to have many or any damages.

You are insane, it’s a huge number. Most parents buy tuition insurance which covers moves and the vast majority of other no fault reasons for leaving a school.

You show an incredible inability to recognize when you are wrong. It must make life difficult for you.

Your ad hominem attacks are embarrassing. There are 200,000 private school students in the region in a given year. So 2,000,000 enrollment contracts in the last decade. 140 of those have resulted in litigation. That's a tiny number. Of course, you continue to ignore the key issue that's been repeatedly raised by many posters, which is whether the school is popular enough to have a waiting list. You've been unable to cite a single case of a competitive school that has gone after a family for tuition. I'm sure there are a few instances out there, but they'd be infrequent and probably in jurisdictions that don't find a duty to mitigate. If the school can easily fill the seat, it doesn't make any economic sense to sue for tuition.

And hardly anyone buys tuition refund insurance (about 5-12%). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/06/your-money/college-tuition-insurance.html (Yes, this source is about college, where prices are higher and withdrawals far more common). And insurance rarely covers voluntary withdrawal, and when it does, insurance pays out at a very reduced rate.

Translation—I”ve been proven wrong time and again but I want to keep embarrassing myself.

No? I and many others on this thread have made the point over and over again about a duty to mitigate damages, the significance of a waiting list, and the cost of litigation. No, 140 lawsuits over 10 years does not change the analysis at all. But keep telling yourself you're right.

You are once again wrong. The non breaching party does not have a duty to mitigate where there is a valid liquidated damages clause. The Maryland Court of Appeals made this very holding in a school tuition case. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/md-court-of-appeals/1217074.html

Interesting opinion but certainly not the law everywhere.

See 248 N.J. Super. 474 (N.J.); 174 F.3d 751 (6th Cir.); 71 Pa. D. & C.2d 551 (Penn.); 252 A.2d 437 (Del.). In many jurisdictions, in the withdrawal is before the school year commences and there is a wait pool, the liquidated damages provision of a year or a semester of tuition is considered a "penalty" and thus unenforceable.

I only looked at the first of these decisions, the NJ one, and it held that there is no duty to mitigate. Did you actually read them because they say the opposite of what you say?

Under a contract whereby an educational institution agrees to provide instruction for a specified period and a parent of a student agrees to pay a definite sum for tuition and similar charges in consideration therefor, we hold that where the contract expressly provides that no deduction or refund will be made, the entire tuition is payable despite the fact that the student withdraws from school. In these circumstances, the educational institution has no duty to mitigate damages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reputation issue. Since most families are relatively well off, they would prefer to pay the full year rather than going to a trial.

Having said that, private schools don’t really care if the family is poor. They just want their money:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/08/private-school-lawsuit-sandy-springs-families/

It's a reputational issue for the schools, not for the families. SSFS sued this mother when it was on the verge of closing due to collapsing finances. It ultimately forgave the debt because of how bad the publicity was for it. But SSFS evidently didn't have a wait pool of tons of eager, full-pay families. Otherwise, it wouldn't have come close to closing.

That’s same WaPo article said it was not uncommon for schools to go after people who break their contracts, regardless of the reason:
Private institutions filed at least 140 cases over the past decade seeking more than $1.6 million in debt, The Post found in a search of court databases in the District and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs. Among them: suits against the mother of a kindergartner dismissed after a week of school for “extreme incidents”; a father who signed an enrollment contract but withdrew his son ahead of the academic year because of alleged bullying; and a couple who moved out of state.
Schools pointed to the contracts signed by parents, which generally state that they are binding after a spring or summer deadline, at which point they hold parents to a full year of tuition. In court paperwork and hearings, their attorneys argued that administrators relied on commitments from families while budgeting and hiring for the school year, and the loss of expected tuition put them in a bind.

years
140 cases over ten years throughout the entire metro region is a tiny amount, particularly considering the high transience of our population. To me, it shows that schools rarely sue families for tuition. I strongly suspect the overwhelming majority of schools going after families are smaller, less prestigious ones that will be legitimately damaged by the disenrollment. I would bet less than 5 (maybe even 0) involve schools like Sidwell, GDS, Maret, NCS, St. Albans, Bullis, and Potomac have ever sued a family to recover tuition. This because -- I explain again -- that a school is going to have to show that they made efforts to mitigate damages. If they can fill the seat with a full-pay family waiting in the wings, they're not going to have many or any damages.

You are insane, it’s a huge number. Most parents buy tuition insurance which covers moves and the vast majority of other no fault reasons for leaving a school.

You show an incredible inability to recognize when you are wrong. It must make life difficult for you.

Your ad hominem attacks are embarrassing. There are 200,000 private school students in the region in a given year. So 2,000,000 enrollment contracts in the last decade. 140 of those have resulted in litigation. That's a tiny number. Of course, you continue to ignore the key issue that's been repeatedly raised by many posters, which is whether the school is popular enough to have a waiting list. You've been unable to cite a single case of a competitive school that has gone after a family for tuition. I'm sure there are a few instances out there, but they'd be infrequent and probably in jurisdictions that don't find a duty to mitigate. If the school can easily fill the seat, it doesn't make any economic sense to sue for tuition.

And hardly anyone buys tuition refund insurance (about 5-12%). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/06/your-money/college-tuition-insurance.html (Yes, this source is about college, where prices are higher and withdrawals far more common). And insurance rarely covers voluntary withdrawal, and when it does, insurance pays out at a very reduced rate.

Translation—I”ve been proven wrong time and again but I want to keep embarrassing myself.

No? I and many others on this thread have made the point over and over again about a duty to mitigate damages, the significance of a waiting list, and the cost of litigation. No, 140 lawsuits over 10 years does not change the analysis at all. But keep telling yourself you're right.

You are once again wrong. The non breaching party does not have a duty to mitigate where there is a valid liquidated damages clause. The Maryland Court of Appeals made this very holding in a school tuition case. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/md-court-of-appeals/1217074.html

Interesting opinion but certainly not the law everywhere.

See 248 N.J. Super. 474 (N.J.); 174 F.3d 751 (6th Cir.); 71 Pa. D. & C.2d 551 (Penn.); 252 A.2d 437 (Del.). In many jurisdictions, in the withdrawal is before the school year commences and there is a wait pool, the liquidated damages provision of a year or a semester of tuition is considered a "penalty" and thus unenforceable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reputation issue. Since most families are relatively well off, they would prefer to pay the full year rather than going to a trial.

Having said that, private schools don’t really care if the family is poor. They just want their money:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/08/private-school-lawsuit-sandy-springs-families/

It's a reputational issue for the schools, not for the families. SSFS sued this mother when it was on the verge of closing due to collapsing finances. It ultimately forgave the debt because of how bad the publicity was for it. But SSFS evidently didn't have a wait pool of tons of eager, full-pay families. Otherwise, it wouldn't have come close to closing.

That’s same WaPo article said it was not uncommon for schools to go after people who break their contracts, regardless of the reason:
Private institutions filed at least 140 cases over the past decade seeking more than $1.6 million in debt, The Post found in a search of court databases in the District and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs. Among them: suits against the mother of a kindergartner dismissed after a week of school for “extreme incidents”; a father who signed an enrollment contract but withdrew his son ahead of the academic year because of alleged bullying; and a couple who moved out of state.
Schools pointed to the contracts signed by parents, which generally state that they are binding after a spring or summer deadline, at which point they hold parents to a full year of tuition. In court paperwork and hearings, their attorneys argued that administrators relied on commitments from families while budgeting and hiring for the school year, and the loss of expected tuition put them in a bind.

years
140 cases over ten years throughout the entire metro region is a tiny amount, particularly considering the high transience of our population. To me, it shows that schools rarely sue families for tuition. I strongly suspect the overwhelming majority of schools going after families are smaller, less prestigious ones that will be legitimately damaged by the disenrollment. I would bet less than 5 (maybe even 0) involve schools like Sidwell, GDS, Maret, NCS, St. Albans, Bullis, and Potomac have ever sued a family to recover tuition. This because -- I explain again -- that a school is going to have to show that they made efforts to mitigate damages. If they can fill the seat with a full-pay family waiting in the wings, they're not going to have many or any damages.

You are insane, it’s a huge number. Most parents buy tuition insurance which covers moves and the vast majority of other no fault reasons for leaving a school.

You show an incredible inability to recognize when you are wrong. It must make life difficult for you.

Your ad hominem attacks are embarrassing. There are 200,000 private school students in the region in a given year. So 2,000,000 enrollment contracts in the last decade. 140 of those have resulted in litigation. That's a tiny number. Of course, you continue to ignore the key issue that's been repeatedly raised by many posters, which is whether the school is popular enough to have a waiting list. You've been unable to cite a single case of a competitive school that has gone after a family for tuition. I'm sure there are a few instances out there, but they'd be infrequent and probably in jurisdictions that don't find a duty to mitigate. If the school can easily fill the seat, it doesn't make any economic sense to sue for tuition.

And hardly anyone buys tuition refund insurance (about 5-12%). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/06/your-money/college-tuition-insurance.html (Yes, this source is about college, where prices are higher and withdrawals far more common). And insurance rarely covers voluntary withdrawal, and when it does, insurance pays out at a very reduced rate.

Translation—I”ve been proven wrong time and again but I want to keep embarrassing myself.

No? I and many others on this thread have made the point over and over again about a duty to mitigate damages, the significance of a waiting list, and the cost of litigation. No, 140 lawsuits over 10 years does not change the analysis at all. But keep telling yourself you're right.

You are once again wrong. The non breaching party does not have a duty to mitigate where there is a valid liquidated damages clause. The Maryland Court of Appeals made this very holding in a school tuition case. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/md-court-of-appeals/1217074.html

The pertinent portion of the decision:

As Judge Posner noted in Lake River Corp., the purpose of § 3 of the Agreement would be “blunted” if The Barrie School were required to mitigate damages.   The parties to the Agreement determined that a certain sum would be paid in order to avoid the necessity of determining actual damages that might have resulted from breach.   As a necessary conclusion, § 3 of the Agreement was a comprehensive sum that eliminated the need to calculate actual losses, including any mitigation of damages that might have occurred. Maryland's approach to liquidated damages supports this conclusion, as we view such clauses as “binding agreements before the fact which may not be altered to correspond to actual damages determined after the fact.”  Heister, 392 Md. at 156, 896 A.2d at 352 (emphasis added) (internal citations and quotations omitted).   Because mitigation of damages is part of a post-breach calculation of actual damages, in the absence of a statute mandating mitigation of damages, there exists no duty to mitigate damages where a valid liquidated damages clause exists.

Section 3 of the Agreement is a valid liquidated damages clause and not a penalty.   Therefore, The Barrie School had no duty to mitigate damages and was entitled to the sum enumerated in § 3 of the Agreement.

Finally, in addition to arguing the duty to mitigate, respondents claim the defense of no-actual-harm.   Respondents contend that because The Barrie School filled their daughter's space and actually enrolled more students than anticipated originally, the school suffered no harm from its breach of the Agreement.   We reject this defense in this context.   The same rationale we rely on in rejecting the duty to mitigate in the face of a valid liquidated damages provision applies to the no-actual-harm defense.   Such a defense negates the benefit of an agreed-upon or stipulated damages clause and deviates from our acceptance of the principle that the time of contract formation is the appropriate point from which to judge the reasonableness of a stipulated amount of damages.   It would also breed uncertainty in the calculation of damages, because if we were to accept the no-actual-harm defense, why would courts not then give greater damages than contemplated when the damages actually exceeded the stipulated amount?

Courts around the country have addressed similar fact patterns and many have held that there is no duty to mitigate damages under these circumstances.  

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reputation issue. Since most families are relatively well off, they would prefer to pay the full year rather than going to a trial.

Having said that, private schools don’t really care if the family is poor. They just want their money:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/08/private-school-lawsuit-sandy-springs-families/

It's a reputational issue for the schools, not for the families. SSFS sued this mother when it was on the verge of closing due to collapsing finances. It ultimately forgave the debt because of how bad the publicity was for it. But SSFS evidently didn't have a wait pool of tons of eager, full-pay families. Otherwise, it wouldn't have come close to closing.

That’s same WaPo article said it was not uncommon for schools to go after people who break their contracts, regardless of the reason:
Private institutions filed at least 140 cases over the past decade seeking more than $1.6 million in debt, The Post found in a search of court databases in the District and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs. Among them: suits against the mother of a kindergartner dismissed after a week of school for “extreme incidents”; a father who signed an enrollment contract but withdrew his son ahead of the academic year because of alleged bullying; and a couple who moved out of state.
Schools pointed to the contracts signed by parents, which generally state that they are binding after a spring or summer deadline, at which point they hold parents to a full year of tuition. In court paperwork and hearings, their attorneys argued that administrators relied on commitments from families while budgeting and hiring for the school year, and the loss of expected tuition put them in a bind.

years
140 cases over ten years throughout the entire metro region is a tiny amount, particularly considering the high transience of our population. To me, it shows that schools rarely sue families for tuition. I strongly suspect the overwhelming majority of schools going after families are smaller, less prestigious ones that will be legitimately damaged by the disenrollment. I would bet less than 5 (maybe even 0) involve schools like Sidwell, GDS, Maret, NCS, St. Albans, Bullis, and Potomac have ever sued a family to recover tuition. This because -- I explain again -- that a school is going to have to show that they made efforts to mitigate damages. If they can fill the seat with a full-pay family waiting in the wings, they're not going to have many or any damages.

You are insane, it’s a huge number. Most parents buy tuition insurance which covers moves and the vast majority of other no fault reasons for leaving a school.

You show an incredible inability to recognize when you are wrong. It must make life difficult for you.

Your ad hominem attacks are embarrassing. There are 200,000 private school students in the region in a given year. So 2,000,000 enrollment contracts in the last decade. 140 of those have resulted in litigation. That's a tiny number. Of course, you continue to ignore the key issue that's been repeatedly raised by many posters, which is whether the school is popular enough to have a waiting list. You've been unable to cite a single case of a competitive school that has gone after a family for tuition. I'm sure there are a few instances out there, but they'd be infrequent and probably in jurisdictions that don't find a duty to mitigate. If the school can easily fill the seat, it doesn't make any economic sense to sue for tuition.

And hardly anyone buys tuition refund insurance (about 5-12%). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/06/your-money/college-tuition-insurance.html (Yes, this source is about college, where prices are higher and withdrawals far more common). And insurance rarely covers voluntary withdrawal, and when it does, insurance pays out at a very reduced rate.

Translation—I”ve been proven wrong time and again but I want to keep embarrassing myself.

No? I and many others on this thread have made the point over and over again about a duty to mitigate damages, the significance of a waiting list, and the cost of litigation. No, 140 lawsuits over 10 years does not change the analysis at all. But keep telling yourself you're right.

You are once again wrong. The non breaching party does not have a duty to mitigate where there is a valid liquidated damages clause. The Maryland Court of Appeals made this very holding in a school tuition case. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/md-court-of-appeals/1217074.html

I’ll admit my sample size is small, but I’ve worked at two private schools. Several families withdraw after the deadline, and we haven’t yet sued a family for tuition.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reputation issue. Since most families are relatively well off, they would prefer to pay the full year rather than going to a trial.

Having said that, private schools don’t really care if the family is poor. They just want their money:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/08/private-school-lawsuit-sandy-springs-families/

It's a reputational issue for the schools, not for the families. SSFS sued this mother when it was on the verge of closing due to collapsing finances. It ultimately forgave the debt because of how bad the publicity was for it. But SSFS evidently didn't have a wait pool of tons of eager, full-pay families. Otherwise, it wouldn't have come close to closing.

That’s same WaPo article said it was not uncommon for schools to go after people who break their contracts, regardless of the reason:
Private institutions filed at least 140 cases over the past decade seeking more than $1.6 million in debt, The Post found in a search of court databases in the District and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs. Among them: suits against the mother of a kindergartner dismissed after a week of school for “extreme incidents”; a father who signed an enrollment contract but withdrew his son ahead of the academic year because of alleged bullying; and a couple who moved out of state.
Schools pointed to the contracts signed by parents, which generally state that they are binding after a spring or summer deadline, at which point they hold parents to a full year of tuition. In court paperwork and hearings, their attorneys argued that administrators relied on commitments from families while budgeting and hiring for the school year, and the loss of expected tuition put them in a bind.

years
140 cases over ten years throughout the entire metro region is a tiny amount, particularly considering the high transience of our population. To me, it shows that schools rarely sue families for tuition. I strongly suspect the overwhelming majority of schools going after families are smaller, less prestigious ones that will be legitimately damaged by the disenrollment. I would bet less than 5 (maybe even 0) involve schools like Sidwell, GDS, Maret, NCS, St. Albans, Bullis, and Potomac have ever sued a family to recover tuition. This because -- I explain again -- that a school is going to have to show that they made efforts to mitigate damages. If they can fill the seat with a full-pay family waiting in the wings, they're not going to have many or any damages.

You are insane, it’s a huge number. Most parents buy tuition insurance which covers moves and the vast majority of other no fault reasons for leaving a school.

You show an incredible inability to recognize when you are wrong. It must make life difficult for you.

Your ad hominem attacks are embarrassing. There are 200,000 private school students in the region in a given year. So 2,000,000 enrollment contracts in the last decade. 140 of those have resulted in litigation. That's a tiny number. Of course, you continue to ignore the key issue that's been repeatedly raised by many posters, which is whether the school is popular enough to have a waiting list. You've been unable to cite a single case of a competitive school that has gone after a family for tuition. I'm sure there are a few instances out there, but they'd be infrequent and probably in jurisdictions that don't find a duty to mitigate. If the school can easily fill the seat, it doesn't make any economic sense to sue for tuition.

And hardly anyone buys tuition refund insurance (about 5-12%). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/06/your-money/college-tuition-insurance.html (Yes, this source is about college, where prices are higher and withdrawals far more common). And insurance rarely covers voluntary withdrawal, and when it does, insurance pays out at a very reduced rate.

Translation—I”ve been proven wrong time and again but I want to keep embarrassing myself.

No? I and many others on this thread have made the point over and over again about a duty to mitigate damages, the significance of a waiting list, and the cost of litigation. No, 140 lawsuits over 10 years does not change the analysis at all. But keep telling yourself you're right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reputation issue. Since most families are relatively well off, they would prefer to pay the full year rather than going to a trial.

Having said that, private schools don’t really care if the family is poor. They just want their money:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/08/private-school-lawsuit-sandy-springs-families/

It's a reputational issue for the schools, not for the families. SSFS sued this mother when it was on the verge of closing due to collapsing finances. It ultimately forgave the debt because of how bad the publicity was for it. But SSFS evidently didn't have a wait pool of tons of eager, full-pay families. Otherwise, it wouldn't have come close to closing.

That’s same WaPo article said it was not uncommon for schools to go after people who break their contracts, regardless of the reason:
Private institutions filed at least 140 cases over the past decade seeking more than $1.6 million in debt, The Post found in a search of court databases in the District and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs. Among them: suits against the mother of a kindergartner dismissed after a week of school for “extreme incidents”; a father who signed an enrollment contract but withdrew his son ahead of the academic year because of alleged bullying; and a couple who moved out of state.
Schools pointed to the contracts signed by parents, which generally state that they are binding after a spring or summer deadline, at which point they hold parents to a full year of tuition. In court paperwork and hearings, their attorneys argued that administrators relied on commitments from families while budgeting and hiring for the school year, and the loss of expected tuition put them in a bind.

years
140 cases over ten years throughout the entire metro region is a tiny amount, particularly considering the high transience of our population. To me, it shows that schools rarely sue families for tuition. I strongly suspect the overwhelming majority of schools going after families are smaller, less prestigious ones that will be legitimately damaged by the disenrollment. I would bet less than 5 (maybe even 0) involve schools like Sidwell, GDS, Maret, NCS, St. Albans, Bullis, and Potomac have ever sued a family to recover tuition. This because -- I explain again -- that a school is going to have to show that they made efforts to mitigate damages. If they can fill the seat with a full-pay family waiting in the wings, they're not going to have many or any damages.

You are insane, it’s a huge number. Most parents buy tuition insurance which covers moves and the vast majority of other no fault reasons for leaving a school.

You show an incredible inability to recognize when you are wrong. It must make life difficult for you.

Your ad hominem attacks are embarrassing. There are 200,000 private school students in the region in a given year. So 2,000,000 enrollment contracts in the last decade. 140 of those have resulted in litigation. That's a tiny number. Of course, you continue to ignore the key issue that's been repeatedly raised by many posters, which is whether the school is popular enough to have a waiting list. You've been unable to cite a single case of a competitive school that has gone after a family for tuition. I'm sure there are a few instances out there, but they'd be infrequent and probably in jurisdictions that don't find a duty to mitigate. If the school can easily fill the seat, it doesn't make any economic sense to sue for tuition.

And hardly anyone buys tuition refund insurance (about 5-12%). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/06/your-money/college-tuition-insurance.html (Yes, this source is about college, where prices are higher and withdrawals far more common). And insurance rarely covers voluntary withdrawal, and when it does, insurance pays out at a very reduced rate.

Translation—I”ve been proven wrong time and again but I want to keep embarrassing myself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reputation issue. Since most families are relatively well off, they would prefer to pay the full year rather than going to a trial.

Having said that, private schools don’t really care if the family is poor. They just want their money:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/08/private-school-lawsuit-sandy-springs-families/

It's a reputational issue for the schools, not for the families. SSFS sued this mother when it was on the verge of closing due to collapsing finances. It ultimately forgave the debt because of how bad the publicity was for it. But SSFS evidently didn't have a wait pool of tons of eager, full-pay families. Otherwise, it wouldn't have come close to closing.

That’s same WaPo article said it was not uncommon for schools to go after people who break their contracts, regardless of the reason:
Private institutions filed at least 140 cases over the past decade seeking more than $1.6 million in debt, The Post found in a search of court databases in the District and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs. Among them: suits against the mother of a kindergartner dismissed after a week of school for “extreme incidents”; a father who signed an enrollment contract but withdrew his son ahead of the academic year because of alleged bullying; and a couple who moved out of state.
Schools pointed to the contracts signed by parents, which generally state that they are binding after a spring or summer deadline, at which point they hold parents to a full year of tuition. In court paperwork and hearings, their attorneys argued that administrators relied on commitments from families while budgeting and hiring for the school year, and the loss of expected tuition put them in a bind.

years
140 cases over ten years throughout the entire metro region is a tiny amount, particularly considering the high transience of our population. To me, it shows that schools rarely sue families for tuition. I strongly suspect the overwhelming majority of schools going after families are smaller, less prestigious ones that will be legitimately damaged by the disenrollment. I would bet less than 5 (maybe even 0) involve schools like Sidwell, GDS, Maret, NCS, St. Albans, Bullis, and Potomac have ever sued a family to recover tuition. This because -- I explain again -- that a school is going to have to show that they made efforts to mitigate damages. If they can fill the seat with a full-pay family waiting in the wings, they're not going to have many or any damages.

You are insane, it’s a huge number. Most parents buy tuition insurance which covers moves and the vast majority of other no fault reasons for leaving a school.

You show an incredible inability to recognize when you are wrong. It must make life difficult for you.

Your ad hominem attacks are embarrassing. There are 200,000 private school students in the region in a given year. So 2,000,000 enrollment contracts in the last decade. 140 of those have resulted in litigation. That's a tiny number. Of course, you continue to ignore the key issue that's been repeatedly raised by many posters, which is whether the school is popular enough to have a waiting list. You've been unable to cite a single case of a competitive school that has gone after a family for tuition. I'm sure there are a few instances out there, but they'd be infrequent and probably in jurisdictions that don't find a duty to mitigate. If the school can easily fill the seat, it doesn't make any economic sense to sue for tuition.

And hardly anyone buys tuition refund insurance (about 5-12%). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/06/your-money/college-tuition-insurance.html (Yes, this source is about college, where prices are higher and withdrawals far more common). And insurance rarely covers voluntary withdrawal, and when it does, insurance pays out at a very reduced rate.

The schools don’t start with litigation, they start with debt collectors. Most families pay the money owed before it even gets to that,

In any case, the benchmark has moved from the contracts aren’t enforceable (they are), to the schools won’t enforce them (the article shows they do), to its only a small amount. It’s a very rare situation and there are multiple enforcement mechanisms before litigation.

Get it through your (very thick head) that once the commitment date passes, there is no wait list. The kids that were once on it are on the hook for full tuition elsewhere. Even college waitlists expire before full tuition payments are due. The wait list exists only from notification to the full commitment date. Parents might be willing to give up a deposit but few are stupid enough to commit to full tuition at two schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reputation issue. Since most families are relatively well off, they would prefer to pay the full year rather than going to a trial.

Having said that, private schools don’t really care if the family is poor. They just want their money:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/08/private-school-lawsuit-sandy-springs-families/

It's a reputational issue for the schools, not for the families. SSFS sued this mother when it was on the verge of closing due to collapsing finances. It ultimately forgave the debt because of how bad the publicity was for it. But SSFS evidently didn't have a wait pool of tons of eager, full-pay families. Otherwise, it wouldn't have come close to closing.

That’s same WaPo article said it was not uncommon for schools to go after people who break their contracts, regardless of the reason:
Private institutions filed at least 140 cases over the past decade seeking more than $1.6 million in debt, The Post found in a search of court databases in the District and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs. Among them: suits against the mother of a kindergartner dismissed after a week of school for “extreme incidents”; a father who signed an enrollment contract but withdrew his son ahead of the academic year because of alleged bullying; and a couple who moved out of state.
Schools pointed to the contracts signed by parents, which generally state that they are binding after a spring or summer deadline, at which point they hold parents to a full year of tuition. In court paperwork and hearings, their attorneys argued that administrators relied on commitments from families while budgeting and hiring for the school year, and the loss of expected tuition put them in a bind.

years
140 cases over ten years throughout the entire metro region is a tiny amount, particularly considering the high transience of our population. To me, it shows that schools rarely sue families for tuition. I strongly suspect the overwhelming majority of schools going after families are smaller, less prestigious ones that will be legitimately damaged by the disenrollment. I would bet less than 5 (maybe even 0) involve schools like Sidwell, GDS, Maret, NCS, St. Albans, Bullis, and Potomac have ever sued a family to recover tuition. This because -- I explain again -- that a school is going to have to show that they made efforts to mitigate damages. If they can fill the seat with a full-pay family waiting in the wings, they're not going to have many or any damages.

You are insane, it’s a huge number. Most parents buy tuition insurance which covers moves and the vast majority of other no fault reasons for leaving a school.

You show an incredible inability to recognize when you are wrong. It must make life difficult for you.

Your ad hominem attacks are embarrassing. There are 200,000 private school students in the region in a given year. So 2,000,000 enrollment contracts in the last decade. 140 of those have resulted in litigation. That's a tiny number. Of course, you continue to ignore the key issue that's been repeatedly raised by many posters, which is whether the school is popular enough to have a waiting list. You've been unable to cite a single case of a competitive school that has gone after a family for tuition. I'm sure there are a few instances out there, but they'd be infrequent and probably in jurisdictions that don't find a duty to mitigate. If the school can easily fill the seat, it doesn't make any economic sense to sue for tuition.

And hardly anyone buys tuition refund insurance (about 5-12%). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/06/your-money/college-tuition-insurance.html (Yes, this source is about college, where prices are higher and withdrawals far more common). And insurance rarely covers voluntary withdrawal, and when it does, insurance pays out at a very reduced rate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reputation issue. Since most families are relatively well off, they would prefer to pay the full year rather than going to a trial.

Having said that, private schools don’t really care if the family is poor. They just want their money:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/08/private-school-lawsuit-sandy-springs-families/

It's a reputational issue for the schools, not for the families. SSFS sued this mother when it was on the verge of closing due to collapsing finances. It ultimately forgave the debt because of how bad the publicity was for it. But SSFS evidently didn't have a wait pool of tons of eager, full-pay families. Otherwise, it wouldn't have come close to closing.

That’s same WaPo article said it was not uncommon for schools to go after people who break their contracts, regardless of the reason:
Private institutions filed at least 140 cases over the past decade seeking more than $1.6 million in debt, The Post found in a search of court databases in the District and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs. Among them: suits against the mother of a kindergartner dismissed after a week of school for “extreme incidents”; a father who signed an enrollment contract but withdrew his son ahead of the academic year because of alleged bullying; and a couple who moved out of state.
Schools pointed to the contracts signed by parents, which generally state that they are binding after a spring or summer deadline, at which point they hold parents to a full year of tuition. In court paperwork and hearings, their attorneys argued that administrators relied on commitments from families while budgeting and hiring for the school year, and the loss of expected tuition put them in a bind.

years
140 cases over ten years throughout the entire metro region is a tiny amount, particularly considering the high transience of our population. To me, it shows that schools rarely sue families for tuition. I strongly suspect the overwhelming majority of schools going after families are smaller, less prestigious ones that will be legitimately damaged by the disenrollment. I would bet less than 5 (maybe even 0) involve schools like Sidwell, GDS, Maret, NCS, St. Albans, Bullis, and Potomac have ever sued a family to recover tuition. This because -- I explain again -- that a school is going to have to show that they made efforts to mitigate damages. If they can fill the seat with a full-pay family waiting in the wings, they're not going to have many or any damages.

You are insane, it’s a huge number. Most parents buy tuition insurance which covers moves and the vast majority of other no fault reasons for leaving a school.

You show an incredible inability to recognize when you are wrong. It must make life difficult for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reputation issue. Since most families are relatively well off, they would prefer to pay the full year rather than going to a trial.

Having said that, private schools don’t really care if the family is poor. They just want their money:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/08/private-school-lawsuit-sandy-springs-families/

It's a reputational issue for the schools, not for the families. SSFS sued this mother when it was on the verge of closing due to collapsing finances. It ultimately forgave the debt because of how bad the publicity was for it. But SSFS evidently didn't have a wait pool of tons of eager, full-pay families. Otherwise, it wouldn't have come close to closing.

That’s same WaPo article said it was not uncommon for schools to go after people who break their contracts, regardless of the reason:
Private institutions filed at least 140 cases over the past decade seeking more than $1.6 million in debt, The Post found in a search of court databases in the District and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs. Among them: suits against the mother of a kindergartner dismissed after a week of school for “extreme incidents”; a father who signed an enrollment contract but withdrew his son ahead of the academic year because of alleged bullying; and a couple who moved out of state.
Schools pointed to the contracts signed by parents, which generally state that they are binding after a spring or summer deadline, at which point they hold parents to a full year of tuition. In court paperwork and hearings, their attorneys argued that administrators relied on commitments from families while budgeting and hiring for the school year, and the loss of expected tuition put them in a bind.

years
140 cases over ten years throughout the entire metro region is a tiny amount, particularly considering the high transience of our population. To me, it shows that schools rarely sue families for tuition. I strongly suspect the overwhelming majority of schools going after families are smaller, less prestigious ones that will be legitimately damaged by the disenrollment. I would bet less than 5 (maybe even 0) involve schools like Sidwell, GDS, Maret, NCS, St. Albans, Bullis, and Potomac have ever sued a family to recover tuition. This because -- I explain again -- that a school is going to have to show that they made efforts to mitigate damages. If they can fill the seat with a full-pay family waiting in the wings, they're not going to have many or any damages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reputation issue. Since most families are relatively well off, they would prefer to pay the full year rather than going to a trial.

Having said that, private schools don’t really care if the family is poor. They just want their money:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/08/private-school-lawsuit-sandy-springs-families/

It's a reputational issue for the schools, not for the families. SSFS sued this mother when it was on the verge of closing due to collapsing finances. It ultimately forgave the debt because of how bad the publicity was for it. But SSFS evidently didn't have a wait pool of tons of eager, full-pay families. Otherwise, it wouldn't have come close to closing.

That’s same WaPo article said it was not uncommon for schools to go after people who break their contracts, regardless of the reason:
Private institutions filed at least 140 cases over the past decade seeking more than $1.6 million in debt, The Post found in a search of court databases in the District and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs. Among them: suits against the mother of a kindergartner dismissed after a week of school for “extreme incidents”; a father who signed an enrollment contract but withdrew his son ahead of the academic year because of alleged bullying; and a couple who moved out of state.
Schools pointed to the contracts signed by parents, which generally state that they are binding after a spring or summer deadline, at which point they hold parents to a full year of tuition. In court paperwork and hearings, their attorneys argued that administrators relied on commitments from families while budgeting and hiring for the school year, and the loss of expected tuition put them in a bind.

Another mistake being made is the assumption that schools need to sue to collect the money. They do not — they can go directly to debt collectors and credit agencies once tuition is sufficiently overdue. A parent, however, would have to litigate to try to get out of the contract.