Appeal by respondent from Herring, Judge. Order entered 27 May 1981 in Superior Court, Durham County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 March 1982.
Hill, Judge. Judges Wells and Becton concur.
In June, 1977, petitioner, then a resident of Kentucky, applied for admission to the University of North Carolina at Greensboro [hereinafter referred to as "UNC-G"]. He was accepted for admission and subsequently was billed for six semester hours at $156, the in-state tuition rate, which he paid. Petitioner
enrolled, found it necessary to quit attending classes, and withdrew from UNC-G. Although the deadline to drop courses at UNC-G and still receive a tuition refund was 8 September 1977, petitioner's request to drop the six semester hours was delivered on 5 October.
On 29 November 1977, petitioner received a letter from the Cashier's Office which informed him of an additional charge of $573, representing the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition, which was due immediately because petitioner had been erroneously classified as an in-state student. Petitioner appealed the additional charge, but the Refund Committee at UNC-G informed him that the charge was justified. On 25 April 1980, the Cashier's Office informed petitioner that it intended to claim all of his 1979 income tax refund to pay his delinquent account pursuant to the Setoff Debt Collection Act, G.S. 105A-1 to -16. Petitioner then requested a hearing on this matter before the Refund Committee.
Petitioner's hearing was held on 20 June 1980. The minutes of that meeting and the decision of the Refund Committee were recorded as follows:
Date: Friday, June 20,1980
Place: Leon Sartin's Office, Accounting Office
Members Present: Eleanor Morris, Jerry Harrelson, Leon Sartin
Guests: Brent Willett and Carol Sanders
Carol Sanders presented the information on which the University's claim against Mr. Willett's tax refund was based, which was the fact that Mr. Willett had been charged out-of-state tuition for Fall 1977 and paid the in-state rate.
Mr. Willett presented his case which was that he dropped the classes and did not feel that he should have to pay for services he did not receive. He also stated that he was not aware of the residence requirements and the difference in costs.
The Refund Committee's decision was that there was no additional information presented to reverse the original decision of the Committee which was based on an appeal Mr. Willett made in November of 1977 on ...