2018 Ohio 4873
Oh. Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahog...2018Background
- Arvella Mills enrolled her daughter Kayla at Cleveland Central Catholic (CCC) for 2013–2014 and signed an educational contract and registration acknowledging financial responsibility; no separate "tuition loan contract" was in the record.
- Mills believed a Cleveland Scholarship (voucher) would cover tuition based on prior voucher use; she claims she would have sent Kayla to public school if she knew a voucher would not apply.
- Mills did not timely renew the voucher for 2013–2014; the school contends it informed her of tuition amount and voucher value but the record lacks proof the school told her the voucher deadline had passed before enrollment.
- Kayla attended CCC freshman and sophomore years; CCC awarded some diocesan aid and Kayla earned limited volunteer tuition credits, but an unpaid balance accrued ($7,888.19) for 2013–2015.
- CCC sued Mills for reimbursement under R.C. 3103.03(D) (necessaries) and unjust enrichment; the trial court granted CCC summary judgment for the full amount.
- The court of appeals reversed as to the necessaries claim (entering judgment for Mills) and remanded the unjust-enrichment claim for further factfinding, holding genuine issues of material fact remain as to unjust enrichment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CCC) | Defendant's Argument (Mills) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether private K–12 education provided by a third party is a "necessary" under R.C. 3103.03(D) making the parent liable for reasonable value | Education is a necessary; Mills chose private school and thus is responsible to reimburse CCC for the education rendered | Private school tuition is not necessarily a "necessary" where public school options exist; here Mills relied on a voucher and would have used public school if she knew voucher was unavailable | Private school tuition can be a necessary in some circumstances, but CCC failed to show as a matter of law that (1) public school would not have met Kayla’s needs or (2) Mills neglected to provide education; summary judgment for CCC reversed and judgment entered for Mills on necessaries claim |
| Whether CCC may recover under unjust enrichment for tuition balance despite an express written enrollment document | CCC conferred a benefit (education); Mills knowingly received it and retaining it without payment would be unjust | An enforceable, sufficiently definite contract governs tuition (precluding unjust enrichment) or, alternatively, Mills’ lack of notice and reliance on voucher negate unconscionability | Existence of a contract was not proven as to essential payment terms; prima facie elements of benefit/knowledge are met, but genuine issues of material fact exist whether retention of the benefit is unjust and the amount; summary judgment for CCC on unjust enrichment reversed and claim remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (party bearing burdens on summary judgment)
- Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2002) (meeting of the minds and contract enforcement)
- Rulli v. Fan Co., 79 Ohio St.3d 374 (Ohio 1997) (contract terms must be reasonably certain)
- Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St.3d 278 (Ohio 2005) (elements and purpose of unjust enrichment)
- Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp., 12 Ohio St.3d 179 (Ohio 1984) (elements of unjust enrichment)
- Hummel v. Hummel, 133 Ohio St. 520 (Ohio 1941) (definition and purpose of unjust enrichment)
- Wolf v. Friedman, 20 Ohio St.2d 49 (Ohio 1969) (necessaries term is fact-dependent)
- Kulcsar v. Petrovic, 20 Ohio App.3d 104 (Ohio Ct. App.) (examples of necessaries including education)