By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
The Michigan Court of Claims committed no error when it decided that Michigan State University had not breached its contracts or unjustly enriched the institution by not refunding tuition, room and board, and other fees due to disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic, the Court of Appeals ruled unanimously last week.
In a published opinion dated last Wednesday and issued last Thursday, written by Judge Stephen Borrello and joined by Judge Noah Hood and Judge Adrienne Young, the panel in Allen/Olin/Placko v. MSU (COA Docket Nos. 358135-7) affirmed the Court of Claims in its decision to grant summary disposition to MSU.
The case arose out of the university’s response to the pandemic and its mandate for instruction and coursework to move from in-person to a virtual setting. Three sets of parents of MSU students sued the school seeking partial refunds for money paid for tuition, room and board and other fees, also alleging a breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
The cases were consolidated in the Court of Claims. MSU argued it was entitled to summary disposition and that the unjust enrichment claim was erroneous because the university was empowered to manage expenditures under the Constitution. Regarding room and board, MSU argued there was a written contract covering the matter.
The Court of Claims ultimately ruled for MSU but only in part. It granted summary disposition to the university on Allen’s breach of contract claims, saying the written brochures and catalogs produced by MSU offer prospective students a general expectation of in-person classes, but not a contractual promise. The same applied for in-person campus living and the fee-based claims.
That said, the court found there was no genuine issue of fact regarding whether MSU had breached the contract by encouraging students to leave campus if possible, continuing to provide room and board for students who chose to stay, and offering credit to students who opted to leave campus.
Summary disposition was denied to MSU regarding tuition and fee-based unjust enrichment claims. The university sought reconsideration and won on the tuition claim but lost in its argument on the fee-based enrichment claims.
The court acted similarly in the other consolidated cases. After continued back and forth on the remaining issue, the Court of Claims eventually ruled for MSU and dismissed the cases.
Borrello and his appellate panel colleagues affirmed that decision.
“Here, the plaintiffs have not cited any record evidence demonstrating that MSU affirmatively promised and committed itself to providing only in-person instruction under all circumstances for the entire semester in exchange for tuition,” Borrello wrote. The plaintiffs also have not cited any evidence in the record demonstrating that MSU affirmed its promise and commitment to providing any particular type of service on campus in exchange for fees. The plaintiffs have not shown any evidence that MSU expressly manifested, in writing or orally, an intent to provide only in-person instruction or particular types of services on campus for the entire semester under all circumstances.”
Gongwer News Service
The Michigan Court of Claims committed no error when it decided that Michigan State University had not breached its contracts or unjustly enriched the institution by not refunding tuition, room and board, and other fees due to disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic, the Court of Appeals ruled unanimously last week.
In a published opinion dated last Wednesday and issued last Thursday, written by Judge Stephen Borrello and joined by Judge Noah Hood and Judge Adrienne Young, the panel in Allen/Olin/Placko v. MSU (COA Docket Nos. 358135-7) affirmed the Court of Claims in its decision to grant summary disposition to MSU.
The case arose out of the university’s response to the pandemic and its mandate for instruction and coursework to move from in-person to a virtual setting. Three sets of parents of MSU students sued the school seeking partial refunds for money paid for tuition, room and board and other fees, also alleging a breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
The cases were consolidated in the Court of Claims. MSU argued it was entitled to summary disposition and that the unjust enrichment claim was erroneous because the university was empowered to manage expenditures under the Constitution. Regarding room and board, MSU argued there was a written contract covering the matter.
The Court of Claims ultimately ruled for MSU but only in part. It granted summary disposition to the university on Allen’s breach of contract claims, saying the written brochures and catalogs produced by MSU offer prospective students a general expectation of in-person classes, but not a contractual promise. The same applied for in-person campus living and the fee-based claims.
That said, the court found there was no genuine issue of fact regarding whether MSU had breached the contract by encouraging students to leave campus if possible, continuing to provide room and board for students who chose to stay, and offering credit to students who opted to leave campus.
Summary disposition was denied to MSU regarding tuition and fee-based unjust enrichment claims. The university sought reconsideration and won on the tuition claim but lost in its argument on the fee-based enrichment claims.
The court acted similarly in the other consolidated cases. After continued back and forth on the remaining issue, the Court of Claims eventually ruled for MSU and dismissed the cases.
Borrello and his appellate panel colleagues affirmed that decision.
“Here, the plaintiffs have not cited any record evidence demonstrating that MSU affirmatively promised and committed itself to providing only in-person instruction under all circumstances for the entire semester in exchange for tuition,” Borrello wrote. The plaintiffs also have not cited any evidence in the record demonstrating that MSU affirmed its promise and commitment to providing any particular type of service on campus in exchange for fees. The plaintiffs have not shown any evidence that MSU expressly manifested, in writing or orally, an intent to provide only in-person instruction or particular types of services on campus for the entire semester under all circumstances.”
