DOUGLAS A. CHARITY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE DIVISION OF UNIVERSITIES OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, AND THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A graduate student sued Florida State University and the Board of Regents for breach of contract after being denied approval to pursue doctoral studies. The trial court dismissed the complaint based on sovereign immunity, holding that no express written contract existed. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal but remanded for consideration of whether the plaintiff could amend his complaint.
The court held that sovereign immunity may be properly considered on a motion to dismiss because it relates to the court's jurisdiction and may be raised at any time. The trial court properly dismissed the complaint because it failed to allege an express written contract, which is required to waive sovereign immunity.
[1] Sovereign immunity may be raised at any time and relates to the jurisdiction of the court.
[2] Failure to allege the existence of an express written contract can be considered on a motion to dismiss.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a doctrine that prevents suit in the absence of an express written contract between the parties”
Definition of sovereign immunity as the legal basis for dismissal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDouglas Charity, a graduate student at Florida State University, sought to continue his studies toward a doctorate degree. The university and Board of…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Express Written Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing Appellant’s cause of action. Appellant, a graduate student at Florida State University, brought an action against Appellees for an alleged breach of contract arising out of Appellees’ decision to not approve Appellant’s further study toward his doctorate degree. Appel-lees moved to dismiss based on sovereign immunity, a doctrine that prevents suit in the absence of an express written contract between the parties. Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. D.O.C., 471 So. 2d 4, 6 (Fla.1984). The trial court dismissed the cause, finding “there is no express contract between the parties.”
Appellant contends that sovereign immunity is not an appropriate consideration on the motion to dismiss because it is an affirmative defense. We reject that contention and hold that failure to allege the existence of an express written contract was properly considered on the motion to dis miss.1 We also hold that the trial court properly dismissed the complaint because it failed to allege an express written contract. Pan-Am Tobacco Corp., supra; Rabon v. Inn of Lake City, Inc., 693 So. 2d 1126, 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); see, e.g., George Hyman Constr. Co. v. City of Miami, 545 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 553 So. 2d 1164 (Fla.1989).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order, but remand the case for the court’s determination of whether Appellant is entitled to further amend his complaint. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(a).
BOOTH, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur. . Sovereign immunity relates to the jurisdiction of the court and may be raised at any time. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Kropff, 491 So. 2d 1252, 1254 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). See, e.g., Southern Roadbuilders, Inc. v. Lee County, 495 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)(appellate court affirms trial court's dismissal based on sovereign immunity), rev. denied, 504 So. 2d 768 (Fla.1987); Neumann v. Davis Water and Waste, Inc., 433 So. 2d 559, 561-63 (Fla. 2d DCA)(appellate court affirms motion to dismiss granted by trial court based on sovereign immunity), rev. denied, 441 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Gainesville v. State, 778 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…tions precedent in a waiver of sovereign immunity statute must not only be complied with before a suit may be maintained, but also the complaint must specifically allege compliance with the conditions precedent”). Accord Charity v. Board of Regents, 698 So. 2d 907, 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); State, Dep’t of Transp. v. Bailey, 608 So. 2d 1384, 1387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Sebring Utils. Comm’n v. Sicker, 509 So. 2d 968, 969 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Bryant v. Duval County Hosp. Auth, 502 So. 2d 459, 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 198…
-
Heine v. Fla. Atl. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 360 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…e of sovereign immunity may properly be considered on a motion to dismiss.” Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Miami Dade Coll. v. Verdini, 339 So. 3d 413, 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (citing Charity v. Bd. of Regents of the Div. of Univs. of the Fla. Dep’t of Educ., 698 So. 2d 907, 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)). Florida Cases Three opinions from other Florida appellate courts are relevant to the analysis of the legal viability of Students’ claims: Verdini, 339 So. 3d at 413; University of South Florida Board of Trustees v. Moore…
-
Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Miami Dade Coll. v. Verdini (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)….11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Desantis v. Geffin, 284 So. 3d 599, 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). The issue of sovereign immunity may properly be considered on a motion to dismiss. Charity v. Bd. of Regents of the Div. of Univs. of the Fla. Dept. of Educ., 698 So. 2d 907, 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). In reviewing an order on a motion to dismiss, we apply the “four corners rule.” Under this rule, “review for the sufficiency of a complaint to state a cause of action is limited solely to the complaint at issue and its…
Authorities Cited
- Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Dep't OF Corr., 471 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1984)
- Ritts v. State, 491 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Neumann v. Davis Water & Waste, Inc., 433 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Rabon v. INN OF Lake City, Inc., 693 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- S. Roadbuilders, Inc. v. LEE Cnty., 495 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Vita Sofia MacIas v. MacIas, 545 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)