Lawsuit for extra tuition arising due to negligence of university

[authorityabuse]

I recently graduated from a top 20 public school this past winter, under a major that was still in its developmental stages and therefore not very well planned out. I was supposed to graduate last April, but sometime last March, they told me that I would have to take an extra course to complete the degree, in place of a different course that was never offered as planned. Problem is, this was the very first time they told me I would need to take that extra course: ONE MONTH before my planned graduation. So not only was my graduation delayed until the end of the year, but I am also expected to pay almost an extra $2000 in tuition and fees, as this course constituted an extra part-time billing since I was no longer a full-time student. The extra money is what I have a major problem with, and I requested that the extra tuition be waived, since I would not have had to pay it if I was properly informed about the extra course.

A dispute has arisen because when I needed a letter to support my request for a waiver of this extra tuition, one of the faculty coordinators for my major refused to provide the letter, alleging that she informed me (verbally) at an earlier time about the need to take the extra course. She never actually told me anything about the extra course, and in fact, I have a record of an email conversation with her which suggests beyond a reasonable doubt that her claim is false. From the little I know about what's fair game and what's not, even if her claim were true, a verbal, hearsay notification about a change in degree requirements is certainly NOT fair game. If every such change could be communicated to students in a hearsay manner such as this, without ANY written documentation, there would be tons and tons of disputes arising due to dishonest students and professors alike. If I am wrong and written documentation is not needed, correct me on this.

Before I tell more about the situation, let me say that I haven't paid the extra tuition yet, as I've been trying resolve the matter within the university without any lawsuits. However, I am now running out of time because I need to get my official transcripts to send to grad schools that I hope to enroll in this fall, and I can't get the transcripts because I have a financial hold due to the outstanding tuition. I believe the university is aware of my urgency to get this resolved, and they are attempting to take advantage of it. So far, they have been beating around the bush by just reiterating the faculty coordinator's word-of-mouth claim that she told me about the extra course. However, they haven't been able to provide any documentation or evidence to support her claim, nor have they been able to deny that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest I was informed about the extra course. All of the available documentation suggests the contrary (in my favor).

If I can't resolve this within the university very soon, my plan is to pay the tuition so that I can get my transcripts, and then file a small claims suit attempting to get my money back. I have been trying to call the dean of the university for the last week, but his office appears to be avoiding my calls. I only got through once when I hid my number from caller ID, and at that time, his secretary told me he would call me within 2 days, but he has not. It seems quite apparent to me that he is not comfortable speaking with me due to the absence of evidence supporting the university's side of things. What I would like to know is, if I do have to pay this tuition for now in order to get my transcripts, what are my chances of filing a successful suit to get the money back, given the circumstances?

 

[tranquility]

Since you didn't list the state, we can't know for sure. But,

From the little I know about what's fair game and what's not, even if her claim were true, a verbal, hearsay notification about a change in degree requirements is certainly NOT fair game

We might have the party exception problem if the person is considered an agent of the school, but you have another problem too.

The person is going to get up on the stand and say she told you the requirement. That would be an in court statement so hearsay just does not apply. Also, the other side is NOT going to try to prove the out-of-court statement as being true (that you need to take the class), but that they told you previously. They can say what was told you too--just not to prove that you have to take the class.

So, I guess the OP needs to round down what little (he) knows.

 

[authorityabuse]

I was specifically questioning whether it is fair game for a university and its faculty to use verbal (and therefore hearsay) methods to notify students about a change in requirement, without any written documentation of such a notification. My reason for being fairly certain it is NOT fair game is that universities can then use this as a way to make money by having employees claim they informed students about certain things even though they didn't, thereby forcing students to stay longer and pay extra tuition, as in my case. There would be no record of anything, and if that means that the university is automatically favored in such a scenario, then I am surprised...and screwed as well. On the other hand, I also think hearsay notifications are improper because they would give students the chance to try to evade requirements by falsely claiming they weren't properly informed even if they were...but of course students typically won't have much luck with that.

I'm also not sure I'm understanding your response exactly. Based on all records/documentation available, the university has NOT properly informed me about the requirement, so the faculty coordinator's claim that she did inform me is an exculpatory one. If she were to state her claim in court, since it is an exculpatory statement, wouldn't it be hearsay? And if her hearsay evidence is admissible, why would I not be able to allege that she didn't tell me about the requirement, especially since I have the evidence to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt?

I have already taken the class but am just appealing to not have to pay the extra tuition. My original question was: if I do have to pay the tuition temporarily to get my transcripts, what options do I have for trying to get the money back? Will it be much harder after I have already paid?

 

[tranquility]

If she were to state her claim in court, since it is an exculpatory statement, wouldn't it be hearsay? And if her hearsay evidence is admissible, why would I not be able to allege that she didn't tell me about the requirement, especially since I have the evidence to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt?

It wouldn't be hearsay because they would not offer the statement for the truth of it, just that you were told it.

Yes, you can testify they didn't. You can also cross examine the other party.

 

[HomeGuru]

When is the OP going to answer the state question?

 

[wrongsometimes]

if you have a legal problem with the U, write a demand letter the legal representative of the U.

 

[authorityabuse]

It wouldn't be hearsay because they would not offer the statement for the truth of it, just that you were told it.

Ok, I must admit I'm very confused on this one...can you explain this?

I guess another way to get at my original question is: how does a student protect themselves from university personnel falsely claiming (in order to make more money for the university) that they told a student about a requirement change, when they actually didn't? This is why I am quite convinced such information must be in writing.

 

[Indiana Filer]

Ok, I must admit I'm very confused on this one...can you explain this?

Other than the state of confusion, what STATE ARE YOU IN?

 

[tranquility]

[Originally Posted by tranquility View Post
"It wouldn't be hearsay because they would not offer the statement for the truth of it, just that you were told it."]
Ok, I must admit I'm very confused on this one...can you explain this?

OP: "What are the requirements."
School: "You have to have class X."

(in court)
School attorney to school who is on the stand: "What did you tell OP?"
OP: "Objection, hearsay."
Judge: Overruled.
School: "I told him he had to have class X."

You see, the school attorney was NOT trying to get the truth of the out-of-court statement into court. They are NOT trying to prove, with the out-of-court statement, that you have to take class X. That is the truth of the statement, that you have to take class X. No, what they were trying to get in is that you were notified of having to take class X by the statement, not the truth of it.

 

[authorityabuse]

Timing is the point of contention here. The first and only notification occurred one month before my intended graduation, according to all records and documentation, and as a result I ended up liable for extra tuition, relative to my costs if I had been able to take the class while still a full time student. The issue is that the faculty coordinator is claiming she told me about a year before that, although she cannot provide any evidence of this, and I have an email from her that suggests the contrary, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Can you explain why you keep bringing the issue of whether I have to take the class? I have already taken it.

 

[Indiana Filer]

Timing is the point of contention here. The first and only notification occurred one month before my intended graduation, according to all records and documentation, and as a result I ended up liable for extra tuition, relative to my costs if I had been able to take the class while still a full time student. The issue is that the faculty coordinator is claiming she told me about a year before that, although she cannot provide any evidence of this, and I have an email from her that suggests the contrary, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Can you explain why you keep bringing the issue of whether I have to take the class? I have already taken it.

I suggest the only answers this person gets, until they answer the question, is "WHAT IS THE NAME OF YOUR STATE?"

Maybe if he hears it again and again, he might answer.

 

[authorityabuse]

IndianaFiler, because you suggest ludicrous things like that, I am inclined not to answer your question. If you prioritize playing games with people over providing meaningful answers to questions, then that is not my problem.

 

[Indiana Filer]

IndianaFiler, because you suggest ludicrous things like that, I am inclined not to answer your question. If you prioritize playing games with people over providing meaningful answers to questions, then that is not my problem.

Do you not realize that laws are state specific? If not, you're going to have a hard time in this country. There is a reason that question is asked. You don't want to answer, you won't get accurate advice. Your choice.

 

[ecmst12]

Yes, the state matters. That's why it is the FIRST THING YOU SEE when you go to post a question. Why would you think that it was ok to ignore?

 

[authorityabuse]

Yes, the state matters. That's why it is the FIRST THING YOU SEE when you go to post a question. Why would you think that it was ok to ignore?

Perhaps I do not wish to list the state since that will enable this thread to be linked to the university which I attended, and consequently, to me as well, improbable as it may be. If the advice I get happens to be inaccurate for the state I am in, then so be it. I do not have a legal case yet, and I am hoping to resolve this without one, if at all possible.

My question is fairly simple and it only involves the obligation of a university to notify its students IN WRITING of all requirements (and any changes in requirements). I am only asking about the legal terminology pertaining to this obligation, i.e. why it is not adequate for requirements to be communicated to students verbally (due to the problems that can arise from the absence of records and documentation).