## Facts

- The University of Washington (UW) recruited Kevin Conard and Vincent Fudzie as football players and awarded each “athletic financial assistance” for three consecutive academic quarters beginning fall 1983.
- The written scholarship terms guaranteed aid only for the stated award period and provided that aid “will be considered for renewal” during later attendance if the student remained in good standing, made normal academic progress, and complied with UW, Pac-10, and NCAA eligibility rules.
- Incorporated NCAA provisions limited revocation of aid “during any period for which it has been granted” to specified grounds (e.g., ineligibility, fraudulent misrepresentation, serious misconduct, or voluntary withdrawal) and referenced an opportunity for a hearing for cancellations within an award period.
- Conard and Fudzie were involved in multiple criminal and disciplinary incidents while on the team, including theft-related conduct and other misconduct.
- After an arrest during a bowl-game trip following an altercation at a restaurant, UW removed both players from the team and notified them their scholarships would not be renewed for the next academic year.
- UW informed both players they could appeal the nonrenewal to the Athletic Financial Aid Committee.
- Conard did not request a hearing, later became academically ineligible, and left UW.
- Fudzie requested a hearing; the Athletic Financial Aid Committee held a hearing and affirmed the nonrenewal. He remained enrolled and later earned a degree.

## Issues

1. Whether the scholarship contracts, incorporated NCAA rules, and UW practices created a Fourteenth Amendment property interest in scholarship renewal (a legitimate claim of entitlement rather than a unilateral expectation).
2. If no property interest existed, whether nonrenewal of athletic aid could support a federal due process claim regarding the adequacy of UW’s hearing procedures.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court held that neither Conard nor Fudzie had a constitutionally protected property interest in the renewal of their athletic scholarships.
- The court concluded that the scholarship language promising renewal would be “considered” preserved institutional discretion and did not guarantee continuation of benefits beyond the initial award period.
- The court rejected the argument that UW custom or practice converted renewal expectations into a protected entitlement.
- Because no property interest existed, the court did not reach whether the hearing provided to Fudzie satisfied constitutional due process.
- The court reversed the Court of Appeals’ contrary due process holding and reinstated summary judgment for UW.

## Legal Principles

- A Fourteenth Amendment property interest exists only when the claimant has a legitimate claim of entitlement created by rules, contracts, or mutually explicit understandings that substantively limit official discretion.
- Contract terms providing that a benefit will be “considered for renewal,” without mandatory language requiring renewal upon specified conditions, do not create a protected property interest in renewal.
- Limits on revocation of benefits during an existing award period do not, by themselves, create an entitlement to renewal after the award period ends.
- The existence of procedures (committees, recommendations, or hearings) does not create a property interest absent substantive standards that constrain decisionmakers.

## Conclusion

The court held that UW’s nonrenewal of athletic scholarships did not implicate federal due process because the governing scholarship terms and related rules promised only discretionary consideration for renewal, not an entitlement to continued aid beyond the initial award period.


Conard v. Univ. of Wash., 119 Wash. 2d 519, 834 P.2d 17 (Wash. 1992)