## Facts

- George Revay was an undergraduate student at Cleveland State University (CSU) and had attended the school for several years.
- Revay had completed over 200 credit hours and needed about 47 additional credit hours to earn his degree.
- CSU maintained satisfactory academic progress (SAP) guidelines for financial-aid eligibility that were published in the university catalog and on its website.
- Under those SAP guidelines, an undergraduate student who completed more than 192 credit hours was not eligible for additional financial aid.
- In March 2001, CSU notified Revay that he had been awarded $500 in financial aid for the Summer 2001 semester.
- The financial-aid notification letter stated that CSU reserved the right to adjust a financial-aid award based on eligibility and enrollment.
- Revay enrolled in one class during the Summer 2001 term.
- In August 2001, CSU informed Revay that it was revoking the $500 summer aid award because he did not meet SAP requirements, citing the maximum-credit-hours limit.
- Revay petitioned CSU to reinstate the award, but CSU denied the request.
- Revay filed suit in the Ohio Court of Claims, alleging CSU committed fraud and that CSU should be estopped from revoking the award after issuing the award letter.

## Issues

1. Did CSU commit actionable fraud by issuing a $500 financial-aid award letter and later revoking the award after concluding Revay was ineligible under CSU’s published SAP credit-hour limit?
2. Should CSU be equitably estopped from revoking the $500 award based on Revay’s claimed reliance on the award letter despite the letter’s reservation-of-rights language and CSU’s published SAP policy?

## Decision

- The Ohio Court of Claims entered judgment for CSU on all claims.
- The court rejected Revay’s fraud claim because the award letter was expressly conditional and subject to eligibility review, and Revay did not establish a material misrepresentation or justifiable reliance.
- The court rejected Revay’s estoppel theory because CSU’s published SAP policy limited eligibility after 192 credit hours, the award letter reserved CSU’s right to adjust awards, and estoppel generally will not prevent a public institution from applying its published eligibility rules absent extraordinary circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Fraud requires proof of a material misrepresentation (or, in limited circumstances, concealment where there is a duty to speak), made with knowledge of falsity and intent to mislead, justifiable reliance, and resulting injury.
- A financial-aid award notice that reserves the institution’s right to adjust the award based on eligibility and enrollment is a conditional statement rather than an unconditional promise of payment.
- Equitable estoppel requires a representation or course of conduct inconsistent with a later position, reasonable reliance by the claimant, and detriment caused by that reliance.
- Estoppel is rarely applied against governmental entities or public institutions when doing so would conflict with published policies or legally required eligibility limits; persons dealing with such entities are charged with knowledge of those published rules.

## Conclusion

In *Revay v. Cleveland State University*, the Ohio Court of Claims held that CSU was not liable for fraud and was not barred by equitable estoppel after it revoked Revay’s $500 Summer 2001 aid award upon determining he exceeded CSU’s published SAP maximum-credit-hours limit; because the award letter expressly allowed adjustment based on eligibility and the SAP limits were publicly stated, Revay could not show a false representation or reasonable reliance sufficient to recover.


Revay v. Cleveland State University, 2003 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 74 (2003)