Family Matters: Breach of Contract for Failure to Pay College Tuition

The Connecticut Law Tribune reports on a breach of contractclaim by a daughter against her father, who failed (as promised) to pay her collegetuition.  The Law Tribune reports:

So consider the odd case of DanaSoderberg, who went to court to force her father to live up to a deal to payher tuition at Southern Connecticut State University. Hamden family lawyerRenee C. Berman handled the lawsuit for Soderberg.

“Nothing that I’ve researchedhas shown any cases like this and hopefully there won’t be anymore because it’sa sad situation,” said Berman.

Dana came from what is perhaps anall-too-typical family situation. Her parents, Howard and Deborah Soderberg, ofStratford divorced in 2004. Upon splitting, they agreed that Howard, a propertydeveloper, would be responsible for the education costs for their threechildren, Dana, Amanda and Erik.

Dana’s experience had evidentlytaught her that her father had a tendency not to follow through with paying forthings. So she persuaded him the following year to enter into a writtencontract obligating him to pay her college tuition until she was 25, along withother school expenses such as textbooks, and her car insurance.

As part of the agreement, Danawould make an effort to apply for student loans and Howard Soderberg would payoff those loans. Co-signing the agreement was Howard’s sister, Patricia.

Howard delivered on his wordthrough March 24, 2007. But when it came time for Dana to begin her senior yearat Southern Connecticut, Howard Soderberg refused to pay the bills. And so Danagot a $20,000 loan to pay for her last year of college, with her motherco-signing.

Dana graduated and slapped her father with a breach ofcontract action in New Haven Superior Court.  The Law Tribune continues:

The father represented himself in atwo-day trial. He argued that Dana breached their agreement by not makingreasonable efforts to apply for student loans, by failing to attend classesfull time and by not providing him with receipts for tuition and otherschool-related expenses.

Howard Soderberg also filed acounterclaim alleging that his daughter dropped courses and pocketed therefunds. He also said she spent money that was supposed to go toward textbookson personal items.

Attorney Berman said Dana was anart major and needed expensive art supplies for her classes. She said herfather was typically late in making tuition payments, which often forced Danato drop out of certain classes.

Judge Trial Referee William L.Hadden Jr. issued a written opinion earlier this month, ruling that father anddaughter had a legitimate contract, that Dana proved to be the more credibleparty in the lawsuit, and that the father had breached the agreement.

“The plaintiff has proven thatshe has performed all of her obligations as set forth …” wrote Hadden.”The defendants have failed to prove the claims set forth in their specialdefenses and in Howard’s counterclaim.”

Berman said damages totaled around$47,000, including the loan, interest, attorney fees and missed car insurancepayments. Berman did not anticipate an appeal.

“They just don’t have arelationship,” Berman said of Dana and her father. “It has to be weakto begin with if you enter into that agreement.

Berman was struck by HowardSoderberg’s emotions — or lack thereof. “Here his daughter’s bringing himto court and there’s no sadness, no remorse that his daughter was in thissituation having to sue him.”

Berman said Dana’s father stillmaintains “somewhat” of a relationship with his other children andhas paid for their education.

Family lawyer Thomas D. Colin, ofSchoonmaker, George & Colin, P.C. in Greenwich doesn’t foresee a rash ofyoung students suing their parents in light of this opinion.

“I’ve never seen that atall,” said Colin. “I don’t know how many kids can get their parentsto sign contracts with them so I don’t know how much that would show up.”

Berman, whose client is now ateacher, agreed with that assessment.

“I think this is just alimited situation,” Berman said. “This was her way of assuringcollege would get paid. I think it’s a very unique situation. It’s not atypical relationship.”

The tale raises interesting issues about consideration and (perhaps) promissory estoppel.  I have beenunable to locate the written decision – feel free to send it along if you havea copy. (Thanks!)

[Meredith R. Miller]