ILNews

Appellate court affirms arbitration on claims against college

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

With one judge frustrated that Indiana residents and students may have been “hornswoggled” by a college’s advertisements about being accredited, the Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld an order compelling arbitration on a claim that three students were fraudulently induced to enroll because of misrepresentation about that accreditation.

The order comes in the case of Connie Brumley, et al. v. Commonwealth Business College Education Corp., No. 45A04-1002-CT-66, a case from Lake Superior Court.

Three student plaintiffs alleged they were fraudulently induced to enroll in a surgical technology program at Brown Mackie’s Merrillville location by the college’s misrepresentation of its accreditation. Each signed an enrollment agreement and supplemental arbitration form, both of which contained arbitration clauses, and they paid tuition and attended the courses. But at some point they learned of the accreditation issue, and later filed suit alleging breach of express and implied contract, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and fraud –- on the grounds they wouldn’t be able to obtain the type of surgical jobs they were being trained for.

Brown Mackie moved to compel arbitration based on the signed documents, and the original judge on the case denied the college’s motion to compel arbitration based on the enrollment agreement stating the institution was accredited when it was not. But after the case was consolidated with a similar action and transferred to Superior Judge Gerald Svetanoff, he readdressed the issue and granted the motion to compel arbitration. Though he agreed with his colleague about the enrollment agreement not being able to mandate arbitration based on its validity, Judge Svetanoff found that the rationale didn’t extend to the separate arbitration form that none of the student plaintiffs alleged was false or fraudulent.

The plaintiffs asked for interlocutory appeal, the trial court granted that certification, and the Court of Appeals accepted the appeal and heard arguments March 2.

Even though the Federal Arbitration Act and caselaw allows for arbitration agreements to be invalidated by issues such as fraud or unconscionability, the Indiana appellate panel found that the language of this Brown Mackie arbitration agreement didn’t cross any of those lines.

“We conclude that, because plaintiffs’ action challenges the enrollment agreements in their entirety rather than the arbitration clauses in particular, the plaintiffs’ claims remain subject to arbitration,” Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote.

The appellate panel also ruled on other matters that came up in the appeal, such as Brown Mackie’s need or ability to file a cross-appeal relating to the trial judge’s rationale.

Judge Michael Barnes concurred with a separate opinion, finding the majority was correct and he agreed with the arbitration provisions per se based on precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States. However, he pointed out his concerns with what possibly happened in this case, even though the students’ allegations are still unproven at this point.

“Still, if true, it is plainly evident that Brown Mackie at best was disingenuous in its advertising, and at worst was actively dishonest in touting the surgical technology degree it offered,” he wrote. “Although Brown Mackie trumpeted being ‘accredited’ in its advertising and materials, that ‘accreditation’ allegedly was insufficient to allow graduates to take the required exam for surgical technology certification. Indiana residents likely were hornswoggled here, and I am frustrated that we are powerless to intervene. I must trust that an arbitrator will fairly consider the students’ claims. I concur fully, but grudgingly.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT