Utah Court of Appeals
Can universities charge fees not included in initial tuition quotes? Olsen v. University of Phoenix Explained
Summary
Susan Olsen sued University of Phoenix claiming breach of contract and violations of consumer protection laws after being charged a $60 e-resource fee not included in her initial tuition quote. The trial court granted summary judgment for the university on all claims.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Olsen v. University of Phoenix, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a university could charge students additional fees beyond their quoted tuition without breaching their enrollment contract.
Background and Facts
Susan Olsen enrolled at University of Phoenix after receiving a tuition quote from a university representative. During her studies, Phoenix charged her a $60 e-resource fee for accessing electronic course materials. Olsen argued this fee breached her enrollment contract since it wasn’t included in her original quote. She also claimed violations of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act, along with various tort claims including fraudulent misrepresentation and infliction of emotional distress.
Key Legal Issues
The court examined whether: (1) the e-resource fee breached Olsen’s enrollment contract; (2) charging the fee constituted deceptive business practices; (3) Phoenix failed to properly investigate disputed charges; and (4) Phoenix’s actions supported claims for misrepresentation and emotional distress.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Phoenix on all claims. Regarding the breach of contract claim, the court found that the original enrollment contract contained no language guaranteeing the tuition quote included textbooks or similar resources. Crucially, Phoenix presented uncontested evidence that students were only charged the e-resource fee after accessing electronic materials, which were prefaced with an explanation of the $60 fee. This created a separate contract when Olsen accepted the terms by accessing the materials.
Practice Implications
This decision demonstrates the importance of contract formation timing in fee disputes. Universities can impose additional fees if they’re disclosed before students access optional services, creating separate contractual obligations. For practitioners challenging educational institution fees, focus on whether fees were truly mandatory versus conditional upon accessing specific services. The decision also reinforces that consumer protection claims require evidence of actual deceptive practices rather than mere confusion about billing allocation.
Case Details
Case Name
Olsen v. University of Phoenix
Citation
2010 UT App 327
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20090515-CA
Date Decided
November 18, 2010
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A university’s disclosure of an e-resource fee prior to student access to electronic materials creates a separate contract and does not constitute breach of the original enrollment contract or deceptive business practices.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment determinations, as the court accords no deference to trial court’s legal conclusions supporting summary judgment
Practice Tip
When challenging university fees, ensure you have specific evidence showing the fee was mandatory rather than conditional upon accessing optional services or materials.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.