Brian Posey MSU Donor Dispute, Michigan State Accused of Breaking $300,000 Pledge Agreements Over Season Tickets

Longtime Michigan State University donor Brian D. Posey and his businesses, The Ticket Machine and TM Leasing, say MSU broke agreements that protected their season-ticket accounts after they committed $300,000 to athletic programs. The claim appears in a notice of intent dated September 24, 2026 against the Michigan State University Board of Trustees and several university fundraising and ticketing operations. The State News reported it on November 12, 2026.

Posey is seeking repayment of money already paid, relief from the unpaid balance of his pledges and compensation for lost ticket-resale profits on roughly 32 to 42 season-ticket accounts.

A notice of intent is not a lawsuit. As of November 13, 2026, no court complaint, case number, ruling or settlement had been independently verified. These are the claimants’ allegations. MSU has not publicly answered them, and a university spokesperson declined to comment to The State News.

MSU’s published ticketing rules also let it deny renewals and cancel orders for accounts that act as ticket brokers. Whether those general rules beat a specific promise allegedly made to a major donor is the central legal question.

Brian Posey MSU Donor Dispute: Quick Facts

Detail	Reported information
Claimants	Brian D. Posey, The Ticket Machine and TM Leasing
Institution	Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
Main university party	MSU Board of Trustees
Other operations named	MSU Athletics, Spartan Ticket Office, University Advancement, Spartan Fund and Spartan Ventures
Individuals identified	Bryan Hoch, Matt Herold, Paul Schager and former athletic director Alan Haller
Legal filing	Notice of intent, reportedly filed September 24, 2026
First public report	The State News, November 12, 2026
Golf pledge	$250,000 (Men’s Golf Excellence Fund), dated July 1, 2023
Hockey pledge	$50,000 (Hockey Excellence Fund), dated February 1, 2024
Combined pledges	$300,000
Paid toward pledges	At least $170,000, July 2023 to September 2026
Disputed ticket accounts	About 32 to 42
Claimants’ law firm	Mavacy PLLC
Relief sought	Restitution, relief from remaining pledges, lost business profits
Court complaint	Not independently verified
Settlement or judgment	None

The $300,000 is the total of two donation pledges. It is not a court award or a confirmed damages demand.

Why Is Brian Posey Threatening Legal Action Against Michigan State University?

According to the notice, Posey and The Ticket Machine have been among MSU’s most substantial season-ticket customers and donors for about 30 years. They say they bought about $7 million in tickets and gave about $1.5 million in donations across football, basketball, hockey, golf, volleyball and the marching band.

Posey’s position is that MSU made specific promises about his ticket accounts when it secured his 2023 and 2024 pledges, then later changed how it treated those accounts while still asking for payment. If an enforceable agreement exists, the question is whether MSU was allowed to take the benefits away.

What Are the $250,000 and $50,000 MSU Pledge Agreements?

Brian Posey’s $250,000 Men’s Golf Excellence Fund pledge

On July 1, 2023, Posey signed a written pledge of $250,000 to MSU’s Men’s Golf Excellence Fund, payable in five annual installments of $50,000 from 2023 to 2027. He says it was tied to his continuing ticket privileges.

TM Leasing’s $50,000 Hockey Excellence Fund pledge

On February 1, 2024, TM Leasing signed a $50,000 pledge to the Hockey Excellence Fund, payable in five annual installments of $10,000. According to the notice, it qualified the donor for four club-level season tickets at Munn Ice Arena with parking and four upper-level midcourt men’s basketball season tickets with parking. It also allegedly protected eight additional accounts and provided an extra year of account retention.

Did MSU officials confirm the ticket benefits in May 2024?

The notice says that on May 31, 2024, associate athletic directors Bryan Hoch and Paul Schager and then-athletic director Alan Haller confirmed Posey’s ticket benefits and account-retention arrangements with the ticket office and the Spartan Fund. That could be important evidence, but it depends on the actual wording, whether those officials had authority to make the promises and whether the documents reserved MSU’s right to change ticket policies. We have not seen the signed pledge agreements or the alleged May 2024 confirmation.

What Happened to Posey’s MSU Season-Ticket Accounts in 2026?

According to the notice:

• January 2026: An MSU representative called Posey and said the university planned to revoke his season-ticket accounts.
• February 3, 2026: University representatives confirmed the decision at a meeting.
• After February 2026: MSU removed accounts one sport at a time. The notice treats each removal as a separate breach.
• July 24, 2026: Matt Herold, senior vice president of ticketing for Spartan Ventures, contacted Posey about his involvement with MSU athletics and tickets advertised on his business website.
• August 2026: The Spartan Ticket Office said Posey would not be offered renewal of his women’s basketball season tickets for 2026-27, citing a revised ticketing policy and his history of reselling tickets.

Whether MSU committed one breach, several or none could affect damages and filing deadlines.

Can Michigan State University Cancel Season Tickets for Reselling?

MSU’s published ticketing terms reserve broad authority over ticket-broker accounts. The Spartan Athletic Ticket Office says season-ticket holders may resell or transfer tickets they cannot use. It also says MSU may monitor sales and transfers, withhold renewal, cancel orders and adjust donor benefits for accounts showing ticket-broker activity, which it defines by an intent to buy tickets primarily for resale. See the Official Spartan Athletic Ticket Office.

Selling an unused seat is not the same as running a resale business. Posey owns The Ticket Machine, a ticket-resale business, so the commercial use of the accounts is a key fact.

Does MSU’s ticket policy mean Posey has no case?

No. A general policy does not automatically answer whether MSU breached a separate written agreement. The court would look at:

• whether the pledge documents guaranteed renewal or only eligibility for tickets,
• whether they incorporated MSU’s ticket policies, including later changes,
• whether any special exception was promised to Posey’s business,
• whether the officials who made promises had authority,
• whether the restrictions were disclosed before payment, and
• whether MSU applied the restrictions consistently with the agreements.

Did MSU Keep Asking Posey for Pledge Payments After Revoking His Tickets?

That is one of Posey’s main complaints. The notice says the claimants paid at least $170,000 toward the pledges between July 2023 and September 2026. It also says an MSU statement dated July 1, 2026 showed a $100,000 outstanding pledge balance and that MSU demanded another $50,000. How those amounts relate is not clear from the reporting, so they should not be added up as a confirmed $150,000 debt.

Posey argues MSU cannot keep the donations while withdrawing the benefits. That raises material breach, restitution and whether he must keep paying after an alleged failure by MSU.

What Is a Notice of Intent, and Has Brian Posey Actually Filed a Lawsuit Against MSU?

The document reported on November 12 is a notice of intent, not a verified court complaint. A notice is generally a required first step before suing a public university in Michigan, and it does not mean a case will reach court.

Under MCL 600.6431, a person pursuing a covered claim against the state generally must file a claim or a verified notice of intention with the Michigan Court of Claims within one year after the claim accrues. The notice must describe the claim, the damages and the state parties. The September 24 notice has not been checked against the court’s records, so we cannot confirm that every requirement was met.

A notice does not prove breach, establish liability or award damages. A later complaint, if filed, would set out the formal causes of action and relief.

Which Michigan Laws Could Decide Posey’s Claims Against Michigan State?

The dispute is mainly a contract dispute, not a criminal case or a consumer class action.

Michigan breach of contract law

A claimant must show a valid contract, a breach and resulting damages. Bank of America, N.A. v. First American Title Insurance Co., 499 Mich. 74 (2016), describes the elements of a valid contract: parties able to contract, a proper subject matter, legal consideration, mutual agreement and mutual obligation. Michigan courts enforce unambiguous contract terms as written (Rory v. Continental Insurance Co., 473 Mich. 457 (2005)).

Written agreements, prior promises and the parol evidence rule

If the pledge documents contain a merger clause, Michigan’s parol evidence rule can limit use of earlier or side promises to change the written terms, with exceptions such as fraud (UAW-GM Human Resource Center v. KSL Recreation Corp., 228 Mich. App. 486 (1998)). That matters for the alleged May 2024 confirmations. Michigan’s statute of frauds, MCL 566.132, also requires a signed writing for certain agreements that cannot be performed within a year, which could matter for multi-year pledges.

Good faith and discretion to change benefits

Michigan does not recognize an independent claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith (Belle Isle Grill Corp. v. City of Detroit, 256 Mich. App. 463 (2003)). But when a contract gives one side discretion over performance, Michigan courts have asked whether that discretion was used in good faith (Burkhardt v. City National Bank of Detroit, 57 Mich. App. 649 (1975)). That may matter if MSU says its resale policy gave it discretion.

Material breach and remaining pledge payments

A serious enough breach can affect whether the other side must keep performing (Walker & Co. v. Harrison, 347 Mich. 630 (1957)). The court would ask whether the ticket privileges were central to the donation deal or incidental benefits.

Michigan Court of Claims jurisdiction

Under MCL 600.6419, the Michigan Court of Claims has broad jurisdiction over qualifying contract and other claims against the state and its institutions. Which court hears each claim can depend on who the defendant is. The notice names university units, a nonprofit and individual employees, and these are not necessarily treated the same.

Deadlines

• MCL 600.6431 generally requires notice within one year of accrual, or six months for certain personal injury and property damage claims.
• MCL 600.6452 generally sets a three-year limit for Court of Claims actions.
• MCL 600.5807 gives six years for many ordinary contract claims, but it should not be assumed to override the Court of Claims rules.

Restitution and unjust enrichment

Posey seeks repayment of money already paid. Under Michigan law, unjust enrichment generally is not available when an express contract covers the same subject (Barber v. SMH (US), Inc., 202 Mich. App. 366 (1993)). The court would first need to decide what the contracts say.

Could Brian Posey Recover $170,000 or More From Michigan State University?

Possibly, but no award exists. The notice seeks three kinds of relief:

Requested remedy	What it would mean
Restitution	Repayment of qualifying amounts already paid
Relief from pledge obligations	Ending or reducing unpaid commitments
Lost business profits	Compensation for proven losses from the lost ticket accounts

The reported $170,000 is the minimum paid, not what a court has ordered MSU to repay. The claimants would also need to account for value they already received.

Can The Ticket Machine recover lost resale profits from MSU?

Possibly. Michigan allows lost profits that are proven with reasonable certainty and were within the parties’ reasonable contemplation when they contracted (Body Rustproofing, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 149 Mich. App. 385 (1986)). The proof might include past resale transactions, acquisition costs, expenses, prior renewals and how long any proven entitlement lasted. A key issue is whether MSU knew the accounts were used commercially when it allegedly promised to keep them. The notice does not publicly state a total lost-profit figure.

Could a judge order MSU to restore Posey’s season tickets?

It is a possible kind of relief, not an automatic one. A court may order specific performance when an enforceable obligation exists and money would not fully compensate the claimant. The reported notice focuses on restitution, unpaid pledges and lost profits. It does not show that a court has been asked to restore the accounts.

Do Donors Get a Tax Deduction for Gifts That Come With MSU Season Tickets?

Possibly not in full. Before 2018, federal law (26 U.S.C. § 170(l)) let donors deduct 80% of payments made to get the right to buy athletic tickets. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repealed that rule, and payments that secure ticket rights are generally treated as receiving a benefit. This article does not say how Posey’s pledges were treated for tax purposes. Donors in similar arrangements should ask a tax professional.

Who Are Bryan Hoch, Matt Herold and the Other MSU Officials in the Posey Notice?

• Bryan Hoch: MSU associate athletic director, linked to the alleged May 2024 confirmation of ticket benefits.
• Matt Herold: senior vice president of ticketing for Spartan Ventures, who contacted Posey in July 2026.
• Paul Schager and Alan Haller: an associate athletic director and the former athletic director, also named in the alleged May 2024 confirmation.

Being named in a claimant’s notice does not mean anyone has been found liable or accused of a crime.

How Has Michigan State University Responded to the Posey Allegations?

MSU spokesperson Emily Guerrant declined to comment on the notice when The State News asked. No case-specific defense from MSU was available as of November 13. MSU’s public ticketing terms offer one possible explanation for limits on accounts used for resale, but they are not MSU’s formal legal response. The notice says MSU tied at least the women’s basketball nonrenewal to revised ticketing rules and resale history, and it would be premature to assume every revocation had the same reason.

Is the Brian Posey Dispute Connected to Trustee Rema Vassar’s MSU Lawsuit?

Both involve MSU, and The State News reports that Mavacy PLLC represents Posey’s claimants and also represents Trustee Rema Vassar in her separate lawsuit. The firm’s managing partner, Martin T. Shepherd, was unavailable for comment. Vassar’s case concerns university governance, while Posey’s concerns donation agreements and ticket accounts. Nothing verified suggests they are one lawsuit or coordinated cases.

For another MSU contract dispute, see Mel Tucker Lawsuit 2026, Judge Dismisses Brenda Tracy’s Claims + $80M Wrongful Termination Status. It involves a coach’s employment agreement, not donor tickets.

Can Other Michigan State Donors Sue Over Revoked Ticket Benefits?

Possibly, but only if their own agreements and facts support a claim. The questions would be whether the donor got an enforceable promise, paid in reliance on it, whether MSU kept the right to change benefits and whether a measurable loss followed. A donor with priority access through a discretionary annual program may have different rights from one with a negotiated multiyear deal. Selling an occasional unused ticket is not necessarily the same as operating a ticket-broker business.

A donor who wants MSU records may also be able to use Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act (MCL 15.231 and following), which generally applies to public universities, subject to exemptions.

For an unrelated ticketing dispute built on antitrust claims, see NFL Sunday Ticket Class Action Lawsuit Update, $4.7 Billion Verdict Revived Will Subscribers Get Money?. For a different example of disputed contract promises and claimed business losses, see Messi $7 Million Lawsuit, Promoter Says He Skipped a Match He Was Paid to Play Did He Break His Contract at a Florida Soccer Match?.

What Happens Next in the Posey v. Michigan State Donor Dispute?

The next major step would be a verified court complaint or a negotiated resolution. If Posey sues, the parties could fight over the pledge documents, what MSU promised and whether it properly applied its resale policy. Discovery could show whether MSU knew about the commercial ticket activity when the agreements were made. No trial date, judgment or settlement had been verified as of November 13, 2026. Readers can search the Michigan Courts case-search system for any later complaint or order.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Brian Posey MSU Donor Dispute

Who is Brian Posey?

Brian D. Posey is a longtime Michigan State University athletics donor linked to The Ticket Machine and TM Leasing, businesses involved in ticketing.

Why is Brian Posey threatening to sue Michigan State?

He says MSU revoked promised season-ticket privileges after accepting payments under donation agreements totaling $300,000.

How much money did Brian Posey donate to MSU?

The notice says Posey and his businesses gave about $1.5 million over roughly 30 years and paid at least $170,000 toward the recent pledges.

Did Brian Posey give MSU $7 million?

No. The $7 million is the reported value of tickets they bought. The donations are reported at about $1.5 million.

Why did MSU cancel Posey’s season tickets?

According to the notice, MSU cited revised ticketing rules and a history of reselling tickets for at least one nonrenewal.

Is reselling Michigan State tickets illegal?

Not inherently. MSU’s policy allows ticket holders to resell or transfer tickets they can’t use, but it restricts accounts it treats as ticket brokers.

Can a university cancel season tickets after taking donations?

It depends on the agreements, what the university reserved the right to do and why it canceled. A specific binding promise may create enforceable obligations.

Has Brian Posey filed a lawsuit against MSU?

A notice of intent dated September 24, 2026 was reported. A court complaint and case number were not verified.

Is Brian Posey suing for $300,000?

No. The $300,000 is the total of two pledges. The notice seeks several kinds of relief but no fixed $300,000 demand has been verified.

Could Posey get his season tickets back?

Possibly through negotiation or equitable relief, but no court has ordered MSU to restore them.

Is there an MSU donor class action or settlement?

No. The dispute involves named donors and businesses, and no class, settlement fund or claim form has been verified.

Bottom Line: What the Brian Posey v. Michigan State Dispute Means

The dispute asks what happens when a university allegedly promises valuable ticket privileges for donations, then changes them while still asking for the pledged money. Posey says MSU broke its agreements. MSU’s published rules give it wide discretion over ticket-broker accounts. The result will depend on what the pledge agreements actually promised, whether those promises are enforceable and whether MSU kept the right to restrict the accounts.

As of November 13, 2026, the verified development is the reported September 24 notice of intent. There is no ruling, award or settlement.

Sources and legal references

Reporting on the notice of intent

• The State News, November 12, 2026: MSU donor files notice of intent against Board of Trustees, university fundraising arms

Official university and legal sources

• Michigan State University: Spartan Athletic Ticket Office and ticketing terms
• MCL 600.6431: Notices of intention to file claims
• MCL 600.6419: Court of Claims jurisdiction
• MCL 600.6452: Court of Claims filing limitations
• MCL 600.5807: Contract limitations
• Michigan Supreme Court: Bank of America v. First American Title Insurance Co. (2016)

Source limitation: The allegations and filing date come from a notice obtained by The State News. The full notice, the donation agreements, all ticket-account terms and any court complaint were not available for review.

Disclaimer: AllAboutLawyer.com provides general legal information, not legal advice. A notice of intent contains claims that have not been proved in court.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against The State News report on the September 24 notice of intent, Michigan State University’s published ticketing terms and the Michigan Legislature’s official statutes, as of November 13, 2026. Last Updated: November 13, 2026.