Wednesday, October 24, 2007

The assignments of error in the Randolph-Macon Women's College case(s)

Here it says the assignments of error in Record Number 070843 are these:

1. The trial court erred in holding that Appellants failed to allege a specific contract entitling them to a four-year education in a single-sex environment at Randolph-Macon Woman’s College (“R-MWC” or “College”).
2. The trial court erred in holding that the standard R-MWC letter offering admission to Appellants did not contain an express or implied promise to provide them with four years of single-sex liberal arts education.
3. The trial court erred in failing to consider properly the extrinsic evidence submitted in conjunction with Appellants’ Bill of Particulars, which alleged a contract between Appellants and R-MWC with an express or implied promise to provide Appellants with four years of single-sex liberal arts education.
4. The trial court erred in holding that Appellants’ Complaint and Bill of Particulars were too generalized to assert a cause of action for breach of contract.
5. The trial court erred in holding that any contract between the parties was only for a semester, not four years.

The assignments of error in Record Number 071248 are these:

1. The trial court erred by sustaining the Demurrer to the Complaint and/or the Amended Complaint.
2. The trial court erred by ruling that the Virginia Uniform Trust Code does not apply to the Trustees of Randolph-Macon Woman's College and the assets held by that charitable corporation.
3. The trial court erred by ruling that the Trustees of Randolph-Macon Woman's College breached no duty by voting to change the purpose of the College from the education "primarily of women" to the education of "men and women."
4. The trial court erred by ruling that the Trustees of Randolph-Macon Woman's College breached no duty by voting to change the name of the College from "Randolph-Macon Woman's College" to "Randolph College," or, alternatively, by failing to rule on that issue.
5. The trial court erred by ruling that the doctrine of cy pres is not applicable to the facts alleged in the Complaint and/or Amended Complaint.
6. The trial court erred by ruling that the petitioners lack standing to bring this action.

It seems like some of these issues are of extreme interest to other colleges in Virginia - what all makes up the contract between the college and the student?

And, ooh, the cy pres doctrine is defined here:

cy pres doctrine
n. (see-pray doctrine) from French, meaning "as close as possible." When a gift is made by will or trust (usually for charitable or educational purposes), and the named recipient of the gift does not exist, has dissolved or no longer conducts the activity for which the gift is made, then the estate or trustee must make the gift to an organization which comes closest to fulfilling the purpose of the gift. Sometimes this results in heated court disputes in which a judge must determine the appropriate substitute to receive the gift. Example: dozens of local Societies for Protection of Cruelty to Animals contested for a gift which was made without designating which chapter would receive the benefits. The judge wisely divided up the money among several S.P.C.A. chapters.

Separate and apart from these cases, the Lynchburg paper reports here and the AP reports here on an injunction suit filed against the college to stop it from selling a collection of paintings to raise funds.

No comments: