Summary of the Newcomb College Rehearing
Dan Caruso, of Simon, Peragine, Smith, and Redfearn, attorney representing Mrs. Newcomb’s successors, pointed to the clear language in Mrs. Newcomb’s letters, in which she donated more than $1,000,000 during her lifetime to Tulane to establish and maintain Newcomb College, and in her will, in which she left Tulane more than $2,000,000 to develop and maintain the college. He made the case that Mrs. Newcomb devoted her life in the late 1800’s, when women could not even vote, to found and build Newcomb College – the first coordinate college for women– as the best memorial she could erect to honor her beloved daughter. She gave her money over a period of years to Tulane as a facilitator of her design –not because she loved Tulane but because she loved Newcomb.
As Mr. Caruso demonstrated, Mrs. Newcomb gave her money to Tulane with conditions attached, with the expectation of Tulane’s performance in accord with those conditions regarding the development and maintenance of Newcomb College in perpetuity. In its written acceptances of Mrs. Newcomb’s gifts, Tulane’s Board of Administrators acknowledged and agreed to those conditions. Tulane did maintain Newcomb College according to those conditions for more than 119 years until 2006, when it closed the college counter to that charge and in violation of its duty under Mrs. Newcomb’s will. Mr. Caruso argued that it is preposterous to suggest now that, according to this same language, Tulane was always free to do whatever it wanted to with this money after Mrs. Newcomb’s death in 1901. Therefore, Mr. Caruso concluded, Mrs. Newcomb’s intent should be upheld and Newcomb College and all of its endowed funds should be reinstated.
During Tulane’s lawyer’s counterarguments, two of the judges asked him specific questions that went right to the heart of the matter: Did Mrs. Newcomb’s lawyer, who was also Chairman of Tulane’s Board of Administrators, have a conflict of interest? Could a ruling in this case affect charitable giving? The predictable answer from Tulane’s lawyers in each case essentially was “No,” but the questions hung in the air, not clearly answered.
How the majority of the judges were persuaded by these arguments and counterarguments and by the record in this case will determine the outcome of the appeal. The case is being heard on an expedited basis, and the court promised a speedy opinion. Rest assured, you will know as soon as we do.
Newcomb Lives! In the Courts, Sept. 23, 2010. For more information, see my prior posts here, here, here, and here.
Special thanks to Sue Bentch (Professor, retired, St. Mary’s University School of Law) for bringing this update to my attention.