Appellant Joseph Lucero appeals from a judgment entered in the Circuit Court of Boone County granting summary judgment in favor of the Curators of the University of Missouri (“Respondent”) in an action filed by Appellant. Appellant sought damages for Respondent’s alleged breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and also prayed for a declaratory judgment setting forth the rights and obligations that exist among the parties with regard to Respondent’s faculty irresponsibility proceedings. For the following reasons, the judgment is affirmed.
In 2006, Appellant applied and was accepted to attend thе University of Missouri School of Law. In 2007, during the fall semester of his second year, Appellant enrolled in two classes taught by Professor Pamela Smith. Appellant began to have problems with Professor Smith after she canceled several classes and ultimately rescheduled the time and days on which those two classes would meet.
Later in the semester, Professor Smith sent an email instructing the class on an
The emails from Appellant questioned the restrictions Professor Smith placed on the assignment, such as the prohibition on outside research and the subject of the assignment, which involved a trademark dispute between Paris Hilton and Hallmark Cards. Professor Smith’s responses to Appellant’s emails indicated she believed Appellant was unprepared for his class presentation and failed to comply with the prohibition against outside research, which she suggested resulted in an honor code violation.
Professor Smith forwarded Appellant’s emails to both the dean of the law school (“the Dean”) and the associate dean for academic affairs at the law school. In her email to the deans, Professor Smith indicated that she found Appellant’s emails to be threatening and did not feel safe with him in her class or in the law school. The email further requested that Appellant be removed from her classes, that an honor code investigation be opened, and that campus police be notified.
Following the emails, Professor Smith initiated an honor code violation action against Appellant for conducting outside research with respect to the class assignment. Professor Smith also brought subsequent honor code violations against Appellant with regard to other class assignments. All of the honor code violation actions initiated by Professor Smith were decided in favor of Appellant.
Professor Smith also filed a complaint with campus police regarding the nature of the emails she received from Appellant. Campus police investigated the matter but determined no further action was necessary. Appellant was never arrested or warned by campus police in response to Professor Smith’s complaint.
Although Appellant was not removed from Professor Smith’s classes by the Dean, hе voluntarily withdrew from both classes prior to the end of the semester. On December 11, 2007, Appellant withdrew from the law school after finishing his exams.
Prior to withdrawing, however, Appellant filed a charge of faculty irresponsibility against Professor Smith with the university on November 15, 2007. On March 18, 2008, Appellant’s lawyer requested an update as to the status of the faculty irresponsibility charge Appellant had filed against Professor Smith. On March 25, 2008, the Dean responded that the charge had been deemed abandoned and forfeited. After further inquiry from Appellant’s counsel in the following months, the university’s counsel informed Appellant that it had been recommended that the faculty irrеsponsibility proceedings be stayed until the civil proceedings between Appellant and Professor Smith were resolved.
On October 14, 2008, Appellant filed a petition for damages in the Circuit Court of Boone County against Respondent. Appellant subsequently filed an amended petition for damages and declaratory judgment that alleged claims of breach of con
On July 13, 2011, Respondent filed its motion for summary judgment. In its motion, Respondent asserted that Appellant could not sustain a claim for breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. More specifically, Respondent asserted that Appellant failed to identify any specific and discrete promises Respondent breached for purposes of establishing a viable breach of contract claim between Appellant, as a student, and Respondent, as a university. The motion further alleged that Appellant lacked standing to request a declaratory judgment regarding Respondent’s faculty irresponsibility procedures.
On December 1, 2011, the circuit court entered a judgment sustaining Respondent’s motion for summary judgment as to all counts alleged in Appellant’s amended petition. The judgment was silent as to the circuit court’s grounds for granting Respondent’s summary judgment motion. This appeal followed.
Appellant raises seven points on appeal. Because points III and VII are dispositive of this appeal, we address those points first.
In his third point, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in sustaining Respondent’s motion for summary judgment with respect to his breach of contract claim because Appellant alleged specific and discrete promises that were breаched by Respondent for which Respondent can be held liable for breach of contract. “Our review of a grant of summary judgment is essentially de novo.” Sheaf v. Koster,
While other jurisdictions have found a contractual relationship exists between a student and a university, see Gally v. Columbia Univ.,
“In order to make a submissible case of breach of contract, the complaining party must establish the existence of a valid contract, the rights of ‘plaintiff and obligations of defеndant under the contract, a breach by defendant, and damages resulting from the breach.” C. Am. Health Sciences Univ., Belize Med. College v. Norouzian,
As both parties recognize, other jurisdictions have held that “an educational institution’s brochures, policy manuals and other advertisements may form the basis of a legally cognizable contractual relationship between the institution and its students.” Bittle v. Oklahoma City Univ.,
In its motion for summary judgment, Respondent averred that Appellant failed to allege or establish any specific or discrete promises that the university had breached. On appeal, Appellant identifies several portions оf the Collected Rules and Regulations that he believes constitute discrete obligations that properly form the basis of contractual liability between Appellant and Respondent. These provisions identified by Appellant can be categorized as addressing either (1) Respondent’s failure to ensure a proper learning atmosphere or (2) Respondent’s failure to adhere to university procedures and schedules.
With regard to policies addressing a proper learning atmosphere, Appellant relies upon the following portions from § 330.080 of Respondent’s Collected Rules and Regulations:
1. The University of Missouri is committed tо providing a positive work and learning environment where all individuals are treated fairly and with respect, regardless of their status. Intimidation and harassment have no place in a university community. To honor the dignity and inherent worth of every individual— student, employee, or applicant for employment or admission — is a goal to which every member of the university community should aspire and to which officials of the university*6 should direct attention and resources.
2. With respect to students, it is the university’s special responsibility to provide a positive climate in which students can learn. Chancellors are expected to provide educational programs and otherwise direct resources tо creative and serious measures designed to improve interpersonal relationships, to help develop healthy attitudes toward different kinds of people, and to foster a climate in which students are treated as individuals rather than as members of a particular category of people.
Appellant also identifies Subsection C of the Faculty Bylaws, which provides, in pertinent part:
As a teacher, the Professor encourages the free pursuit of learning in his/her students. He/she holds before them the best scholarly standards of his/her discipline. He/she demonstrates respect for the student as an individual, and adheres to his/her proper role as intellectual guide and counselor. He/she makes every reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and to assure that his/ her evaluation of students reflects their true merit. He/she respects the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. He/she avoids any exploitation of students for his/her private advantage and acknowledges significant assistance from them. He/she protects their academic freedom.
Appellant contends that these identified provisions represent specific promises breached by Respondent with respect to how the university handled the situation between him and Professor Smith.
As Respondent points out, however, these portions of the Collected Rules and Regulations and Faculty Bylaws do not constitute specific promises, but rather are aspirational in nature. The sections identified by Appellant amount to general statements that Respondent, as a university, seeks to achieve in maintaining a positive work and learning environment. Such statements, therefore, cannot constitute the basis for a breach of contract claim.
Other jurisdictions addressing similar policies from other universities have refused to recognize such provisions as specifiс and identifiable contractual promises. In Gaily, a dental student brought a breach of contract action against Columbia University on the basis that the university breached its promise to abide by its Code of Conduct and to prepare graduates with an understanding of the social, economic, societal and ethical aspects of the profession.
Likewise, the court in Ward v. New York University, No. 99 CIV. 8733(RCC),
Similar to the alleged promises in Gaily and Ward, the rules and regulations identified by Appellant do not amount to specific, discrete promises made by Respondent. The identified rules, regulations, and bylaws are more akin to general policy statements expressing Respondent’s aspiration to provide a positive work and learning environment. Such provisions do not represent objective or quantifiable promises made by Respondent; rather, they are merely general promises pronouncing Respondent’s intent to maintain an ethical environment for its faculty and students. Thus, the provisions identified by Appellant regarding a proper learning аtmosphere cannot form the basis of a breach of contract claim.
The remaining Collected Rules and Regulations provisions cited by Appellant regard Respondent’s procedures for addressing faculty irresponsibility charges. These procedures are set forth in Subsection L of the Faculty Bylaws
As a student, Appellant filеd a charge of faculty irresponsibility against Professor Smith. Now on appeal, Appellant claims that Respondent failed to adhere to several of its established procedures in handling his faculty irresponsibility charge against Professor Smith.
The following guidelines and principles will be expected to characterize the monitoring of Faculty responsibility through all formal and informal proceedings:
c. Protection of the accuser against recriminations when a charge is made in good faith.
f. Promptness in conducting each step of the investigation, consistent with fairness in time allowed for preparation. Seven to fourteen days in which the University is in session are reasonable lower and upper limits for each action, with extensions possible for good cause.
g. Assurance to all parties involved of adequate notification of meetings and scheduling at times and places convenient to the persons involved.
Appellant contends that had Respondent complied with these provisions, it might have prevented Professor Smith from harassing him with civil suits and filing “baseless” complaints with the police.
Contrary to Appellant’s contention, however, Subsection L by its own terms establishes that it cannot form the basis for his breach of contract claim. In a section entitled “Basis for the Article,” Subsection L provides that, based on “the principle that a Faculty should monitor its own members, [Subsection] L establishes appropriate procedures for deаling with cases of alleged violation of professional responsibility.” Thus, the purpose for the faculty irresponsibility procedures is to allow the university to monitor its faculty.
With this purpose in mind, any intervention by the court would amount to judicial supervision of a university’s internal procedures for monitoring its faculty. Generally, courts have refrained from recognizing educational malpractice claims, either in tort or contract, on the premise that “[u]niversities must be allowed the flexibility to manage themselves and correct their own mistakes.” Miller,
Appellant’s breach of contract claim, with respect to Respondent’s faculty irresponsibility procedures, essentially amounts to a claim that Respondent, as a university, failed to sufficiently comply with its established policies for monitoring its faculty. The claim, whether identified as one for breach of contract as Apрellant argues, or perhaps more accurately as one sounding in tort, “raises questions concerning the reasonableness of the educator’s conduct in providing educational services” and, as such, “is one of educational malpractice,” which Missouri courts have recognized as a non-cognizable claim. Id. Appellant is effectively requesting the courts to supervise Respondent’s internal procedures for monitoring the professional responsibility of its faculty.
Finally, Appellant claims that the class schedules published by Respondent for the 2007 Fall Semester conveyed a specific and discrete promise that the classes therein would be held at their scheduled times and that Appellant would receive the stated hours of credit for the successful completion of those classes which he took.
Furthermore, in Miller, a Louisiana court refused to recognize a similar claim that the professor improperly changed the time of the course as a valid breach of contract claim against the university.
In summary, the provisions of the Collected Rules and Regulations, Faculty Bylaws, and the class schedule upon which Appellant relies do not constitute specific, discrete promises sufficient to form the basis for a breach of contract claim against Respondent. The trial court, therefore, did not err in granting Respоndent’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Appellant’s breach of contract claim. Point denied.
In his seventh point, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in sustaining Respondent’s motion for summary judgment because Appellant met his burden of production and properly pled the elements of a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. “In Missouri, all contracts have an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” Glenn v. HealthLink HMO, Inc.,
“The party claiming breach of the implied covenant of good faith must present substantial evidence that it has been violated.” Schell v. LifeMark Hosps. of Mo.,
On appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously granted Respondent’s motion for summary judgment because issues of material fact remain as to whether Respondent violated its duty of good faith and fair dealing. In particular, Appellant focuses his argument on the faculty irresponsibility procedures set forth in the Faculty Bylaws, which he asserts Respondent failed to comply with in bad faith.
Appellant relies primarily upon Papelino v. Albany College of Pharmacy of Union University,
In reversing the district court’s decision, the federal circuit court concluded that genuine issues exist for trial with respect to whether the university breached its implied duty of good faith by failing to investigate the student’s complaint of sexual harassment, mishandling the Honor Code proceedings, and denying the student his diploma. Id. at 94. The court, however, emphasized that this was one of the rare cases in which it would be appropriate for a court to intervene. Id. In fact, the court explained that it felt it was appropriate to intervene, at least in part, because of previous intervention by the state court in setting aside the college’s determination that the students had cheated. Id. Thus, the court ruled that the student and his roommates’ breach of contract claim based upon the implied duty of good faith should not have been dismissed. Id.
Unlike the circumstances in Papelino, Appellant offers no evidence that Respondent acted in bad faith with respect to the faculty irresponsibility proceedings. The record establishes that Appellant filed his faculty irresponsibility charge against Professor Smith on November 15, 2007. Appellant withdrew frоm the university on December 11, 2007. On December 21,
Appellant offers no contradictory evidence in the record. Instead, Appellant merely asserts that “the administration decided to drop the faculty irresponsibility charge against Professor Smith precisely because Professor Smith was engaging in the type of harassment that Appellant was complaining about.” Such a conclusory statement does not raise an issue of material fact, and Appellant fails to identify any unresolved material facts relating to his claim for violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealjpg. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Appellant’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Point denied.
Judgment affirmed.
All concur.
Notes
. On February 19, 2008, Professor Smith filed a civil suit against Appellant in the Circuit Court of Boone County. The suit was dismissed without prejudice in 2009. Professor Smith also filed a complaint against Appellant with local law enforcement and filed an ex parte order against Appellant in February of 2008. These complaints were later dismissed.
. Appellant argues that Central America Health Sciences University, Belize Medical College v. Norouzian,
. In his point relied on, Appellant makes reference to the Honor Code as constituting a spеcific and discrete promise for purposes of establishing his breach of contract claim against Respondent. Appellant, however, fails to make any specific references to the Honor Code or how Respondent breached specific provisions therein within his argument section. Therefore, we must deem such argument effectively abandoned. See Weisenburger v. City of St. Joseph,
. Respondent asserts that Appellant laсks standing to allege a breach of contract claim based on provisions found in the Faculty Bylaws. Appellant contends that because the Faculty Bylaws are contained in the Collected Rules and Regulations, he has standing, as a former student, to rely upon such provisions. Although it is unclear whether Appellant has standing as either a party or third-party beneficiary to the Faculty Bylaws, such issue need not be decided for purposes of this appeal.
. Appellant’s intent for the courts to oversee Respondent’s faculty irresponsibility procedures is more evident in his request for declaratory judgment. In Count III of his amended petition, Appellant requested the court to issue a declaratory judgment setting
. We note that Appellant voluntarily withdrew from Professor Smith’s classes. Therefore, Appellant’s argument regarding the amount of class credit he would have received for completing the courses are of little consequence.
. In light of our disposition of Appellant's Points III and VII, we need not address his five remaining points on appeal. Appellants raised the following additional points: (I) the trial court erred in sustaining Respondent’s motion for summary judgment in regards to Respondent’s assertion that the relationship between student and university is not contractual in nature; (II) the trial court erred in sustaining Respondent's motion for summary judgment in regards to Respondent's assеrtion that Appellant improperly incorporated written documents and their contents; (IV) the trial court erred in sustaining Respondent’s motion for summary judgment in regards to Respondent's assertion that Appellant does not have standing to sue for any breach of the university’s Collected Rules and Regulations; (V) the trial court erred in sustaining Respondent’s motion for summary judgment in regards to Respondent's assertion that Respondent cannot be held liable for a breach of contract since Appellant allegedly failed to show how Respondent specifically breached the contract and sustained damages; and (VI) the trial court erred in sustaining Respondent's motion for summary judgment in regards to Respondent’s assertion that Appellant's case is one of educational malpractice.