PROVO — The first four decisions by an arbitrator in BYU students’ efforts to cancel housing contracts amid the COVID-19 pandemic were split, with two students being allowed to break their leases and two who could not, the BYU Center for Peace and Conflict Resolution reported.
These legally binding decisions were overseen by retired Judge Anthony W. Schofield, who served on the 4th Judicial District Court. Among other things, Schofield tried to discern who suffered actual losses as well as direct impact of exposure to COVID-19.
Benjamin Cook, director of the BYU Center for Peace and Conflict Resolution, has said one provision of the housing contact that appears in most contracts for BYU students living in approved housing is “really the key legal issue.”
The section, included in the Student/Landlord Contract section 23b, says that “if the student leaves school due to a verified unforeseeable and unexpected catastrophic loss or serious illness, the student can terminate their own contract.”
The arbitration decisions published late last week point out that BYU announced classes were canceled for a few days on March 12 to be picked up again on March 18 through remote instruction. At this point, university officials encouraged students to return home and announced that those living in on-campus housing were released from their contracts if they wished.
The Off-Campus Housing Office also sent an email to BYU-approved housing providers recognizing that the contact is legally binding, but also encouraging landlords to consider “the value of releasing students.”
Leaves school
While some landlords have argued that the provision “leave school” means to withdraw their enrollment from the university, Schofield wrote that the campus is closed and that students cannot attend their classes. Coupling in the fact that BYU encouraged students to consider going home, leaving school applies in this situation because students are unable to attend classes on campus.
In one ruling, he noted the student never arrived in Provo to attend school because she could not travel to Utah from the country she lived in, and thus she was released from her housing contract.
Catastrophic loss
According to Schofield, none of the students’ sustained a “catastrophic loss” that would justify the termination of their leases.
Three of the students said they lost work, however, Schofield did not classify those losses as “catastrophic.”
“True her schooling has changed as the BYU campus is closed and all classes are being conducted remotely. But, in fact, Tenant has not asserted a loss, certainly not a financial loss, other than her work hours at her on-campus part-time job were reduced,” Schofield wrote in the second decision.
Serious illness
Schofield clarified that “a tenant can leave due to the illness even if the tenant is not personally sick with the illness,” however, the illness must have a “direct, personal effect on the tenant.”
He ruled one student was able to terminate her contract because she had a roommate who was “exhibiting symptoms of respiratory illness” akin to COVID-19. The student also said that she and her mother, a nurse, were terrified by the potential threat to her health. This student gave notice to her landlord on March 18 that she was terminating her lease under this provision, which the landlord denied. The student still returned home, paying April’s rent.
The student in another decision did not have an instance of “serious illness” as she had no direct contact with anyone experiencing symptoms nor did she assert that any of her family members are suffering from the virus or other serious illness. Additionally, “large numbers of other tenants remain in their residences in the complex,” which demonstrated “performance of the lease is still possible for both parties,” according to Schofield.