Pierre v. St. Benedict's Episcopal Day School
324 Ga. App. 283
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Pierre, mother of two enrolled daughters and one in a separate pre-school at St. Benedict’s, signed two identical Enrollment Contracts on February 15, 2011 for 2011-2012 tuition.
- The contracts required full tuition by June 1, 2011 and included a $818.80 deposit; they contained a merger clause and a written-modification requirement.
- In April 2011, the School’s admissions director notified Pierre that the youngest daughter would not be admitted to kindergarten due to age; Pierre elected to send her to a different program, and stated all daughters would not attend in 2011-2012.
- The School later accepted the youngest into kindergarten via a contract Pierre did not sign; Pierre and her husband told the School in June 2011 that none of the daughters would attend for 2011-2012 for financial reasons.
- Pierre stopped payments after a June 2011 billing dispute and a July 2011 after-school care balance issue; the School demanded $16,524.96 plus $335.93 in interest in December 2011, and sued for breach in January 2012.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the School; Pierre appeals challenging mutual departure, liquidated damages vs. penalty, and the Prophecy rule.]
- Notes: The dispute concerns whether there was a mutual departure from contract terms, whether the liquidated damages clause is enforceable, and the applicability of Prophecy ruling to conflicting testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mutual departure from contract terms | Pierre argues there was mutual departure from terms | School contends no mutual departure evidence exists | No genuine issue; no mutual departure |
| Liquidated damages vs. penalty | Tuition as actual damages not a penalty | Tuition is a reasonable, foreseeable damages measure | Liquidated damages upheld; not a penalty |
| Prophecy rule applicability | Prophecy should resolve self-contradictions | Rule inapplicable to this record | Prophecy not controlling; no reversal on this ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc., 256 Ga. 27 (Ga. 1986) (Prophecy rule applies to self-contradictions in sworn testimony)
- Circle K Stores v. T. O. H. Assoc., 318 Ga. App. 753 (Ga. App. 2012) (mutual departure defense usually raises jury question; grant of summary judgment possible with no evidence)
- Turner v. Atlanta Girls’ School, 288 Ga. App. 115 (Ga. App. 2007) (guidance on summary judgment standards and related considerations)
- Salahat v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 298 Ga. App. 624 (Ga. App. 2009) (considerations on summary judgment in bank-failure contexts)
- Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp., 226 Ga. App. 459 (Ga. App. 1997) (appellate treatment of damages and contract interpretation)
- Duncan v. Lagunas, 253 Ga. 61 (Ga. 1984) (principles of contract damages and penalties)