Princeton Montessori Soc., Inc. v. Leff
Decision Date | 03 June 1991 |
Docket Number | No. A-702-90T3,A-702-90T3 |
Citation | 591 A.2d 685,248 N.J.Super. 474 |
Parties | , 68 Ed. Law Rep. 85 The PRINCETON MONTESSORI SOCIETY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alan LEFF, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Dennis J. Helms, for plaintiff-appellant (Mathews, Woodbridge & Collins, attorneys; Dennis J. Helms, of counsel and on the letter brief), Princeton.
Sharon Handrock Moore, for defendant-respondent (Gebhardt & Kiefer, attorneys; Sharon Handrock Moore, of counsel and on the brief), Clinton.
Before Judges MICHELS, GRUCCIO and D'ANNUNZIO.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MICHELS, P.J.A.D.
Plaintiff The Princeton Montessori Society, Inc. appeals from a judgment of the Law Division, Special Civil Part that dismissed its complaint for the balance due under its tuition contract and awarded defendant Alan Leff $5,000 on his counterclaim in this breach of contract action.
Plaintiff is licensed by the State of New Jersey to operate a private school. In the Spring of 1989, plaintiff began its application process for the 1989-90 school year. On or about April 1, 1989, defendant enrolled his daughter, Fay, in plaintiff's school and signed a "Junior Contract." In accordance with the terms of the contract, plaintiff agreed to accept defendant's daughter as a student for the period beginning September 1989 and ending May 1990, and defendant agreed to pay tuition fees of $6500 for the full contracted year, development fees of $750 and a junior activities fee of $150. The contract also provided that no tuition would be refunded if a student withdrew or the school dismissed the student at any time throughout the school year. The contract, which contained a tuition payment schedule, in pertinent part, provided:
The undersigned parent or guardian (the "Parent") of the student agrees to pay
tuition fees of $6500 for the full contracted year. As a convenience to the
undersigned, the tuition may be paid as follows:
Payment I May 1, 1989 $1200 Payment II July 1, 1989 $1200 Junior Activities Fee July 1, 1989 $ 150 Payment III August 15, 1989 $1200 Payment IV November 1, 1989 $1200 Payment V February 1, 1990 $1200 Payment VI March 1, 1990 $N/A Due with return of contract Non-refundable Contract Deposit $ 500 Non-refundable Development Fee $ 750
The Parent understands that the obligation to pay the fees for the full year is
unconditional and that no portion of such fees paid or outstanding will be
refunded or cancelled in the event of absence, withdrawal or dismissal from
the School of the above Student.
Plaintiff also offered defendant the opportunity to participate in the Tuition Refund Plan whereby plaintiff could purchase insurance for 2.2% of the annual tuition fees to provide for paying the tuition if the child withdrew. However, defendant elected not to participate in the Tuition Refund Plan. The contract explained the Tuition Refund Plan as follows:
In view of this obligation, the Parent understands that the option to participate in the Tuition Refund Plan is being made available at this time to protect the yearly financial obligation under the terms of this enrollment contract. This program will give the Parent an opportunity to insure fees (prepaid and due) in the event of separation according to the terms of the policy.
It is imperative that either Option A or B be checked below to indicate the Parent election of the Tuition Refund Plan.
A. The parent elects to participate in the Tuition Refund Plan. It is understood that the premium cost will be billed to the Parent when the Registrar sends the Parent a copy of the signed contract. The premium rate will be 2.2% of the annual tuition fees (see enclosed letter listing premiums for each program). This plan is in effect only after the Student has been in attendance a minimum of 24 school days. The Parent authorizes the School to collect any claim payment entitled to the Parent under the Tuition Refund Plan and credit the balance due, paying any excess to the Parent. The Parent agrees to pay the School whatever balance remains unpaid, after any payment by the Plan is made, within 30 days after receipt of a final, itemized bill from the School.
X B. The Parent does not elect to participate in the Tuition Refund Plan. The Parent understands that no refund or cancellation of the annual tuition fees will be made by the School for absence, withdrawal or dismissal before the end of the school year and herewith agrees to assume full responsibility for the full annual fees.
Prior to the opening day of school, defendant paid plaintiff $5,000 of the agreed upon tuition. Regular classes began on September 11, 1989. Defendant withdrew his daughter from the school on October 10, 1989, apparently because she was unhappy in the program. At that time, he owed $2,400 for the remainder of the year's tuition and a $100 late charge.
When defendant refused to pay the balance due under his contract, plaintiff instituted this action in the Law Division, Special Civil Part. Defendant denied liability and counterclaimed for a refund of his $5,000 payment. At the conclusion of a bench trial, the trial court found that even though defendant breached the contract, plaintiff had a duty to mitigate damages, which it failed to do, and plaintiff suffered no loss due to Fay's withdrawal. The trial court also found that the strict requirements of the contract to pay the fees and tuition constituted an unenforceable civil penalty, not liquidated damages. We disagree and reverse.
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. This decision is consistent with the principles enunciated in Tabor Academy v. Schwartz, 129 N.J.L. 390, 30 A.2d 22 (E. & A.1943) and discussed in Alexander Hamilton Inst. v. Calkins, 112 N.J.L. 170, 170 A. 54 (Sup.Ct.1933) and is supported by the majority of jurisdictions. See Wentworth Military Academy v. Marshall, 225 Ark. 591, 283 S.W.2d 868 (1955) ( ); Stewart v. Claudius, 19 Cal.App.2d 349, 65 P.2d 933 (1937) ( ); Hoadley v. Allen, 108 Cal.App. 468, 291 P. 601 (1930) ( ); Hitchcock Military Academy v. Myers, 76 Cal.App. 473, 245 P. 219 (1926) ( ); Bergman v. Bouligny, 82 A.2d 760 (D.C.Mun.App.1951) ( ); Georgia Military Academy v. Rogers, 35 Ga.App. 789, 134 S.E. 829 (1926) ( ); Northwestern Military & Naval Academy v. Wadleigh, 267 Ill.App. 1 (1932) ( ); Ham v. Miss C.E. Mason's School, The Castle, Inc., 249 Ky. 478, 61 S.W.2d 7 (1933) ( ); Penny v. Spencer Business College, Inc., 85 So.2d 365 (La.App.1956) ( ); Missouri Military Academy v. McCollum, 344 S.W.2d 636 (Mo.App.1961) ( ); Drucker v. New York Univ., 59 Misc.2d 789, 300 N.Y.S.2d 749, affirmed, 33 A.D.2d 1106, 308 N.Y.S.2d 644 (1969) ( ); Van Brink v. Lehman, 199 A.D. 784, 192 N.Y.S. 342 (1922) ( ); William v. Stein, 100 Misc. 677, 166 N.Y.S. 836 (1917) ( ); Brenner v. Little Red School House, Ltd., 302 N.C. 207, 274 S.E.2d 206 (1981), appeal after remand, 59 N.C.App. 68, 295 S.E.2d 607 (1982), review denied, 307 N.C. 468, 299 S.E.2d 220 (1983) ( ); Vidor v. Peacock, 145 S.W. 672 (Tex.Civ.App.1912) ( ).
In Tabor Academy v. Schwartz, 129 N.J.L. at 390, 30 A.2d 22, defendant enrolled his two sons in plaintiff boarding school in the Fall of 1938. The contract provided that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Beukas v. Board of Trustees of Fairleigh Dickinson University
...is not here concerned with the less complex issues involved in resolving tuition disputes. See, The Princeton Montessori Society, Inc. v. Leff, 248 N.J.Super. 474, 591 A.2d 685 (App.Div.1991). ...
-
Waterfront Montessori, LLC v. Xu
...as a matter of law. In another case involving a lawsuit for non-payment of private school tuition, Princeton Montessori Society, Inc. v. Leff, 248 N.J. Super. 474, 478 (App. Div. 1991), we held that "where the contract expressly provides that no deduction or refund will be made, the entire ......
-
Am. Learning Sys., Inc. v. Gomes
...of Burlington College, 103 N.J.Super. 476, 247 A.2d 688 (1968), disagreed with on other grounds, Princeton Montessori Society, Inc. v. Leff, 248 N.J.Super. 474, 591 A.2d 685 (1991), involves facts remarkably similar to the instant case.In Fayman, a child attended a private school for six ye......
-
Princeton Montessori Soc., Inc. v. Leff, C-146
...Society, Inc. v. Leff (Alan) NOS. 33,880, C-146 Supreme Court of New Jersey Oct 03, 1991 Lower Court Citation or Number: 248 N.J.Super. 474, 591 A.2d 685 ...