199 So. 3d 1076
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Father signed a re-enrollment contract for two children for 2014–2015; the contract required both parents’ signatures unless the school in its discretion accepted one, and contained a cancellation deadline and a clause withholding school records/transcripts until the account was paid in full.
- Parents withdrew the children after the cancellation deadline but before the school year began; the school could not fill the spots and billed the remaining tuition, which the parents did not pay.
- School sued father for breach of contract (and parents for account stated). Parents counterclaimed and moved for a temporary (mandatory) injunction to compel immediate release of transcripts so the children could enroll elsewhere and pursue further education.
- The trial court orally granted a preliminary injunction for the older child (deferred on the younger), finding irreparable harm and likelihood of success, and entered a written order reciting the same without detailed factual findings.
- The school appealed; the appellate court reviewed factual findings for abuse of discretion and legal conclusions de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | School's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of contract given only father signed | Contract not binding because mother did not sign; father’s signature alone did not create an enforceable agreement | Contract expressly allowed school discretion to accept one parent’s signature; school had done so previously | Contract was clear: school validly exercised discretion to accept single signature; contract enforceable against father |
| Right to transcripts despite unpaid tuition | Transcripts belong to parents/students; withholding harms children and causes irreparable educational injury | Contract expressly conditions release of transcripts on full payment; school may withhold until account paid | Parents failed to show substantial likelihood of success; contract unambiguously permitted withholding until account paid |
| Sufficiency of trial court’s injunction order | Parents argued injunction was warranted based on harm and likelihood of success | School argued order lacked required specific factual findings under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(c) | Order was facially insufficient for stating only legal conclusions without specific findings; reversible error |
| Applicability of statutory/public-policy arguments | Parents relied on public interest in education and cited statutes as supportive of access | School pointed to statute language showing Legislature did not restrict private schools’ possession of records while operational | Court held statute did not provide a legislative remedy to override clear contractual withholding provision |
Key Cases Cited
- Eldon v. Perrin, 78 So.3d 737 (Fla. 4th DCA) (trial courts must make specific factual findings for each preliminary-injunction element)
- McKeegan v. Ernst, 84 So.3d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA) (reversible error where injunction order lacks sufficient factual findings)
- Landmark Am. Ins. Co. v. Pin-Pon Corp., 155 So.3d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA) (clear contract terms are enforced according to their plain meaning)
- Perez v. Aerospace Academy, Inc., 546 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 3d DCA) (majority rule: tuition remains due after voluntary withdrawal unless school mitigates by admitting a replacement)
- Fayman v. Trustees of Burlington College, 247 A.2d 688 (N.J. Super. Ct.) (private school may withhold transcripts when parent breaches re-enrollment contract)
- McKee v. Southfield School, 613 So.2d 659 (La. Ct. App.) (distinguishable—equitable estoppel/detrimental reliance where school continued to educate student despite delinquency)
- Barakat v. Broward Cty. Hous. Auth., 771 So.2d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA) (courts will not rewrite contracts to relieve parties of bad bargains)