OPINION

MATHIAS, Judge.

Linda McIntire ("McIntire") appeals the Marion Superior Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Franklin Township Community School Corporation ("the School Corporation"). On appeal, McIntire argues that the trial court erred in concluding: (1) that her claim was barred by her failure to provide the required notice under the Indiana Tort Claims Act ("ITCA"), and (2) that Article 8, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution does not provide for a private cause of action for monetary damages. We conclude that the trial court erred in concluding that McIntire's claim was subject to the notice requirements of the ITCA but nevertheless affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment because McIntire may not maintain a claim for monetary damages under Article 8, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution.

Facts and Procedural History

The facts underlying this appeal are undisputed. McIntire lived in Franklin Township in Marion County during the 2011-2012 school year. During this school year, the School Corporation charged certain fees to students in grades 9 through 12, including: (1) a $1.50 locker fee, (2) a $1.50 newspaper fee for each student who received a newspaper, (3) a $2.00 activity fee, (4) a $3.00 ID fee, (5) a $10.00 technology fee, (6) a $4.00 student planner fee, and (7) a textbook rental fee based on the formula set forth in the relevant Indiana statutes. McIntire paid these fees for her children, who attended schools operated by the School Corporation.

McIntire believed that these fees were impermissible under the Education Clause, found in Article 8, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution.1 Accordingly, on December 2, 2011, McIntire filed a complaint for damages and injunctive relief claiming that the School Corporation was violating the Indiana Constitution by charging these fees. The complaint sought an injunction preventing the School Corporation from collecting the fees and demanded the return of the fees already paid. The School Corporation filed its answer on February 15, 2012, setting forth several affirmative defenses, including that McIntire had not complied with the notice provisions of the ITCA. The School Corporation also claimed that the Education Clause did not provide McIntire with a cause of action for monetary damages.

On July 24, 2013, the School Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment. After receiving an extension of time in which to respond to this motion, McIntire filed her response on September 6, 2013, in which she admitted that she did not file an ITCA notice. She claimed, however, that such notice was not required. The trial court held a summary judgment hearing on September 16, 2013, and took the matter under advisement. On September 30, 2013, the trial court entered an order granting the School Corporation's motion for summary judgment, concluding that McIntire's claim was barred because she had failed to comply with the notice requirements of the ITCA and because the Education Clause of the Indiana Constitution did not provide her with a right to a cause of action against the School Corporation for monetary damages. McIntire now appeals.

Summary Judgment

The standard of review we apply on review of a trial court's order granting or denying summary judgment is well settled:

Altevogt v. Brand, 963 N.E.2d 1146, 1150 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (citations omitted).

I. The Nature of McIntire's Complaint

The trial court concluded that McIntire's claim was barred by her failure to comply with the notice requirements of the ITCA. McIntire argues on appeal that she was not required to do so because her complaint did not sound in tort but rather in contract. We disagree with McIntire that her claim is based on contract.

McIntire's complaint states that "[t]his action arises under the Indiana Constitution and common law." Appellant's App. p. 11. The legal allegations of McIntire's complaint state in relevant part:

Appellant's App. pp. 14-15. And in her claim for relief, McIntire requested the trial court to:

Id. at 15.

There is nothing in the complaint which would suggest that it is, as McIntire now claims, based in contract. There is no allegation of the basic elements of a contract claim: an offer, acceptance, a manifestation of mutual assent, and consideration. See Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Ash, Inc., 895 N.E.2d 359, 365 (Ind.Ct. App.2008) (setting forth the elements required for the existence of a binding contract). On appeal, McIntire argues that her claim is based on an implied contract, the terms of which were that if she resided in the School Corporation's district and paid the now-challenged fees, her children could attend the School Corporation's schools. We do not agree.

First, we decline to hold that merely living in the boundaries of a school corporation can form the basis of a contract. Moreover, even if we were to agree with McIntire with regard to the existence of a contract between her and the School Corporation, she develops no argument with regard to how the School Corporation breached the contract, as her children were allowed to attend the School Corporation's schools.

Instead, McIntire argues that the contract she allegedly entered into with the School Corporation was improper because it was based on the payment of unconstitutional school fees. We conclude that McIntire's complaint is not based on contract; it simply claims that the actions of the School Corporation in charging the fees were unconstitutional. But our conclusion does not mean that we agree with the trial court that McIntire's claim sounds in tort and is therefore subject to the notice requirements of the ITCA.

II. ITCA Notice Not Required

The trial court concluded that McIntire's claim sounded in tort and that her claim was therefore barred because she admittedly did not comply with the notice requirements of the ITCA. "In general, the ITCA requires notice of claims against governmental entities and public employees to be given soon after the event." Cantrell v. Morris, 849 N.E.2d 488, 495 (Ind.2006). The applicability of the ITCA to constitutional claims was recently addressed by this court in Hoagland v. Franklin Township Community School Corp., 10 N.E.3d 1034 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014), trans. pending,2 which involved the same School Corporation in the case currently before us.

At issue in Hoagland was the decision of the School Corporation to end transportation, i.e. bussing, for students during the 2011-2012 school year. The School Corporation instead sold, for $1.00, all of its transportation equipment, including its school busses, to Central Indiana Educational Service Center ("CIESC"). CIESC then offered transportation for students whose parents agreed to pay $475, plus a $20 non-refundable deposit, per student, with transportation for each additional child costing an additional $405. Despite an opinion from the Indiana Attorney General that this plan was unconstitutional under the Education Clause of the Indiana Constitution, as construed by our supreme court in Nagy v. Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corp., 844 N.E.2d 481 (Ind.2006), the School Corporation proceeded with its plan. This left parents of students in Franklin Township with the choice of paying the transportation fee, or making alternative arrangements to transport their children to and from school.

The plaintiff, Hoagland, whose children qualified for the federal free-and-reduced-lunch program, opted to take her two children to and from school instead of pay the $900 in transportation fees that would have allowed her children to ride the school bus. After the Indiana Attorney General issued another opinion stating that the School Corporation's arrangement with CIESC was unconstitutional, Hoagland filed a class-action claim against the School Corporation and CIESC, alleging that the transportation arrangement was unlawful and seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.3 After Hoagland's suit was filed, the School Corporation reversed course and began to offer bussing to its students at no charge. By the time the case arrived on appeal to this court,4 the issues remaining were: (1) whether the ITCA barred the plaintiffs' claims; (2) whether the plaintiffs were entitled to monetary damages under the Indiana Constitution; and (3) whether the School Corporation had violated the Education Clause of the Indiana Constitution.

With regard to the first issue, this court agreed with the plaintiff that she was asserting a state constitutional claim, not a tort claim, and that she did not have to file a notice under the ITCA. We wrote:

Hoagland, 10 N.E.3d at 1039-40 (footnotes omitted).

Thus, under Hoagland, it is clear that McIntire need not have filed a notice of her claim under the ITCA because it is not based on an injury to or death of a person or damages to property. See id. As we noted above, McIntire's claim is not based on contract, but neither is it based on a "loss" as defined by the ITCA. See Hoagland, 10 N.E.3d at 1039-40.5 Accordingly, the trial court erred in concluding that McIntire's claim was subject to the notice provisions of the ITCA.

III. Constitutional Claim

Having concluded that McIntire's claim is not one based in contract or in tort law, the question then becomes: what is the basis of McIntire's claim? We think that it is clear from the face of the complaint that she is alleging a direct violation of Article 8, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution. In other words, she claims that the School Corporation's actions of charging the fees amounted to charging for "tuition," which is prohibited by Article 8, Section 1.

Unfortunately for McIntire, this court explicitly held in Hoagland that there can be no claim for monetary damages arising out of the Indiana Constitution. In fact, the holding in Hoagland could be no clearer: "There is no express or implied right of action for monetary damages under the Indiana Constitution." 10 N.E.3d at 1040 (citing Smith v. Ind. Dep't of Correction, 871 N.E.2d 975, 985-86 (Ind.Ct.App.2007)). Accordingly, the plaintiffs in Hoagland could not succeed on their claim for damages. Id. And the same is true here. Because there is no right of action for monetary damages under the Indiana Constitution, McIntire's claim for such damages must fail.

McIntire's citation to Nagy, supra, is unavailing with regard to her claim for monetary damages. In that case, our supreme court held that a school corporation's charging of a $20 "student services" fee for all students amounted to tuition and was impermissible under Article 8, Section 1. Nagy, 844 N.E.2d at 482. But in that case, the plaintiffs sought only declaratory and injunctive relief, not monetary damages. See id. Accordingly, although Nagy supports McIntire's claim that the School Corporation's fees might be constitutionally infirm, it does not support her claim for monetary damages.

Nor do we agree with McIntire's claim that our holding would leave her without any remedy for a constitutional violation, thereby leading to an illusory right. See George v. State, 211 Ind. 429, 434, 6 N.E.2d 336, 338 (1937) (noting the "elementary maxim" that "there is no right without a remedy."). McIntire did not have to pay the fees at issue. She could have immediately sought injunctive relief before paying the fees. Indeed, in Hoagland, there were two classes of parents: those who did pay the transportation fees and those who did not pay the transportation fees. See 10 N.E.3d at 1037.6

Conclusion

Although we reject McIntire's claim that her complaint sounds in contract, we agree that the trial court erred in concluding that McIntire's claim was subject to the notice requirements of the ITCA. This error is not grounds for reversal, however, because, even if McIntire's claim is not subject to the ITCA, she cannot seek monetary damages for a violation of the Indiana Constitution. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the School Corporation.

Affirmed.

FRIEDLANDER, J., and PYLE, J., concur.