Background
Joshua Carter enrolled in UMKC’s accelerated six-year joint B.A./M.D. program in 2011. After receiving a “D” in Cell Biology, UMKC required him to follow an Alternative Curriculum Plan that added a year to the program and required him to retake courses and complete three biology electives. Carter alleged that UMKC’s policy manual and communications promised that repeated-course grades would replace earlier grades in his science GPA and that the biology electives would be included in that calculation.
Carter earned “A” grades in the required courses, but UMKC later told him that his original Functional Anatomy grade would not be replaced, his biology electives would not count toward his science GPA, and his two Cell Biology grades would be averaged. After his science GPA fell below the program’s 2.80 threshold, Carter withdrew. He sued UMKC under several contract theories, also alleging improper transcript reporting, misrepresentations about accreditation, and wrongful placement on the Alternative Curriculum Plan. The circuit court dismissed his petition with prejudice, and Carter appealed only the contract claims against UMKC.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of two contract theories concerning Carter’s science GPA. It held that the policy manual’s specific statement that only the final grade would be used when a science course was repeated was concrete enough to constitute an enforceable contractual promise at the pleading stage. The alleged representation in the Alternative Curriculum Plan email that three biology electives would count toward Carter’s science GPA likewise described a sufficiently definite action by UMKC. Carter also adequately alleged breach and damages by asserting that proper calculation would have allowed him to remain in the program.
Those theories were timely because Carter allegedly could not have ascertained the breaches until March and April 2013, less than five years before he first sued. The court affirmed dismissal of all other theories. Carter’s challenge to being placed on the Alternative Curriculum Plan accrued no later than August 7, 2012, and was time-barred. His accreditation and transcript allegations did not identify sufficiently specific promises that UMKC had broken, and the continuing-wrong doctrine did not extend the limitations period. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the two surviving science-GPA theories.
Key Takeaways
- A university policy or communication may support a contract claim when it promises a specific, objectively identifiable action rather than expressing a general aspiration.
- Carter adequately pleaded that UMKC promised to replace grades for repeated science courses and include specified biology electives in his science GPA.
- A contract claim accrues when substantial resulting damage is capable of ascertainment; continuing effects from a completed wrong do not create a continuing wrong.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinction between enforceable academic promises and general descriptions of a university program. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, a student may proceed when a handbook or individualized communication sets out a concrete method for calculating grades and the university allegedly fails to follow it.
The ruling also underscores that separate alleged breaches arising from the same academic dispute may accrue on different dates. Carter’s early objection to the additional-year curriculum made that theory untimely, while the later notices about UMKC’s GPA calculations allowed two distinct theories to survive.