Haviland v. Simmons
45 A.3d 1246
R.I.2012Background
- Haviland and her husband Armstrong sought Brown University positions to accommodate dual-career needs.
- Armstrong was offered Brown dean position; Haviland sought tenure-like security in Brown offer.
- October 18, 2000 draft/mailed letters promised non-renewal standards and tenure-like protections.
- November 17, 2000 letter stated exceptions can be made and that October 18 remained relevant; Haviland signed November 8, 2000.
- TPAC renewal for 2004 failed; Provost Zimmer renewed with a higher standard, prompting appeal and later reappointment in 2009.
- Trial court found an implied-in-fact contract or promissory estoppel; Brown appealed alleging lack of justiciable controversy and authority issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Justiciability of UDJA claim | Haviland has injury in fact from ongoing renewal uncertainty | No imminent injury; no standing | Plaintiff has standing; ongoing uncertainty constitutes injury |
| Existence of an enforceable contract | October 18 and related letters created de facto tenure terms | No de facto tenure; terms unclear and not integrated | Express contract arose; ambiguity over renewal standards remains but contract valid |
| Contract ambiguity and standard of review | November 17 letter and October 18 term ambiguous; apply ambiguity against drafter | November 8 letter silent on review standard, standard should be sustained excellence | Ambiguity exists; terms construed against Brown; renewal governed by October 18 terms |
| Authority of Brown administrators to offer tenure-like terms | Dean/Provost/Interim President had authority to offer security | Only Brown Corporation can confer tenure; administrators lacked such authority | Administrators had implied authority; Corporation ratified the arrangement |
Key Cases Cited
- Providence Lodge No. 3, Fraternal Order of Police v. Providence External Review Authority, 951 A.2d 497 (R.I. 2008) (deference to trial court findings; UDJA context)
- Fleet National Bank v. 175 Post Road, LLC, 851 A.2d 267 (R.I. 2004) (great weight given to trial court factual findings)
- N & M Properties, LLC v. Town of West Warwick ex rel. Moore, 964 A.2d 1141 (R.I. 2009) ( UDJA justiciability and standing concepts cited)
- Meyer v. City of Newport, 844 A.2d 148 (R.I. 2004) (standing and injury in fact standards cited)
- Beacon Mutual Insurance Co. v. Spino Brothers, Inc., 11 A.3d 645 (R.I. 2011) (contract ambiguity; interpretation rules)
- Fryzel v. Domestic Credit Corp., 120 R.I. 92, 385 A.2d 663 (R.I. 1978) (ambiguity construed against drafter)
- Andrukiewicz v. Andrukiewicz, 860 A.2d 235 (R.I. 2004) (ambiguity and contract interpretation principles)