was that Mr. Senu-Oke be given the opportunity to make his position known to defendants and since he was given this opportunity, defendants reasonably concluded he was afforded due process. Property interests protected by the due process clause are “defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.” Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). A property interest in his place in the EPHD program would likely have arisen had Mr. Senu-Oke actually enrolled in the program and paid his tuition. See Harris v. Blake, 798 F.2d 419, 422 (10th Cir.1986) (observing that “[t]he actual payment of tuition secures an individual’s claim of entitlement”); Thomas v. Gee, 850 F.Supp. 665, 674 (S.D.Ohio 1994) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Behrend v. State, 55 Ohio App.2d 135,
holding that the words school property do not include a college or university holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school holding that no special relationship existed between the school and student holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in vested contractual rights recognizing that property interest based on contractual relationship may arise  when a student enrolls in a college or university pays his or her tuition and fees and attends such school 