Lucero v. Curators of University of Missouri
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 195
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant Joseph Lucero sued the University of Missouri Curators for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a declaratory judgment regarding faculty irresponsibility procedures.
- Lucero attended MU Law School; in 2007 he had conflicts with Professor Pamela Smith over class schedules and a research assignment involving a trademark dispute, leading to heated email exchanges.
- Professor Smith forwarded Lucero’s emails to law school administrators; she initiated honor code proceedings alleging outside research, which were resolved in Lucero’s favor.
- Lucero withdrew from the two classes in December 2007 and from the law school on December 11, 2007; he filed a faculty irresponsibility charge against Smith on November 15, 2007, which was later deemed abandoned.
- MU remained nonconclusive on the charge, with recommendations to stay proceedings until civil matters between Lucero and Smith were resolved; Lucero filed suit October 14, 2008, adding a declaratory judgment claim.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for MU on December 1, 2011 as to all counts, and the judgment did not specify its grounds; Lucero appealed, raising multiple points, with points III and VII deemed dispositive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contract claim requires identifiable promises | Lucero argues there were discrete promises in university rules and schedules. | MU contends the provisions are aspirational, not specific promises, and thus not actionable contracts. | Summary judgment upheld; no specific promises formed a breach of contract claim. |
| Faculty bylaws and procedures can support breach | Lucero asserts Subsection L and related provisions create discrete duties for monitoring faculty. | MU argues these provisions are for internal monitoring and not enforceable contractual promises. | Court rejected as educational malpractice/monitoring scheme; cannot form contract breach. |
| Class schedule constitutes a discrete contract promise | Lucero claims published Fall 2007 class schedule guaranteed times/credit. | There is no identifiable record of a specific promise in the schedule in the record. | No evidence of a specific, discrete promise; no breach claim based on schedule. |
| Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing | Lucero claims MU acted in bad faith in handling the faculty irresponsibility charge. | MU did not act in bad faith; no evidence of improper motive or denial of expected benefits. | Summary judgment affirmed; no genuine issue of material fact showing bad faith. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gally v. Columbia Univ., 22 F.Supp.2d 199 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (courts declined to treat general policies as contractual promises)
- Miller v. Loyola Univ. of New Orleans, 829 So.2d 1057 (La.Ct.App.2002) (rejected contract claim from time changes as not a guaranteed service)
- Dallas Airmotive, Inc. v. FlightSafety Int'l, Inc., 277 S.W.3d 696 (Mo.App. W.D. 2008) (courts avoid micromanaging day-to-day educational operations)
- C. Am. Health Sciences Univ., Belize Med. College v. Norouzian, 236 S.W.3d 69 (Mo.App. W.D. 2007) (specific written agreement required for enforceable contractual relationship)
- Ward v. New York University, 2000 WL 1448641 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (general promises about learning environment not actionable contracts)