CITY OF GAINESVILLE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLEE
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.
The City of Gainesville appealed the dismissal of its action to collect stormwater utility fees from the Department of Transportation, arguing that DOT's status as a 'person' under Florida law waived sovereign immunity. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that sovereign immunity waivers must be strictly construed and that chapter 180 does not explicitly waive immunity for stormwater utilities.
The court held that sovereign immunity waivers must be strictly construed and are not implied, and that chapter 180 does not provide a waiver of sovereign immunity for utilities authorized under chapter 403. Therefore, the City must have a written contract before it can sue to collect stormwater fees from DOT.
[1] Statutes purporting to waive sovereign immunity are strictly construed in favor of the State and must be clear and unequivocal.
[2] Waiver of sovereign immunity will not be implied by statute.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Statutes purporting to waive sovereign immunity are strictly construed in favor of the State, and must be clear and unequivocal.”
Establishes the standard of review for sovereign immunity waivers—they must be explicit and are interpreted narrowly in favor of the state.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Gainesville sought to collect stormwater utility fees from the State Department of Transportation. The City argued that because DOT qualif…
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 Implied Waiver Of Sovereign Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
HAWKES, J.
In this third appeal between these parties, the City of Gainesville argues the trial court reversibly erred by dismissing, with prejudice, its action to collect stormwater utility fees from the Department of Transportation (DOT). We affirm.
In essence, the City argues that, since DOT is a person within the meaning of chapter 180, Florida Statutes, sovereign immunity is waived, and the City does not need a contract to collect the stormwater utility fees authorized pursuant to chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The City’s argument is without merit.
Statutes purporting to waive sovereign immunity are strictly construed in favor of the State, and must be clear and unequivocal. See e.g., Spangler v. Fla. State Tpk. Auth, 106 So. 2d 421, 424 (Fla. 1958); Div. of Admin. v. Oliff, 350 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Seaside Prop., Inc. v. State Road Dep’t, 121 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); Blockbuster Video, Inc. v. Dep’t of Transp., 714 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Waiver of sovereign immunity will not be implied. See Spangler, 106 So. 2d at 424; Seaside Prop., 121 So. 2d at 206.
Here, the City refuses to accept that chapter 180 has a very specific listing of the municipal services included within its scope. One municipal service not included in that list is stormwater runoff. The Legislature, for whatever reason, decided not to include stormwater runoff within the scope of chapter 180. We are unable to rewrite the chapter to provide the relief sought by the City. Because chapter 180 does not provide a waiver of sovereign immunity for utilities authorized pursuant to chapter 403, the parties’ circumstances have not changed since the first appeal.
Consequently, although the stormwater fee may be a valid utility fee, consistent with our previous opinion, before the City can sue to collect the fee, it must have a written contract. See City of Gainesville v. Fla. Dep’t of Transp., 778 So. 2d 519, 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Since the City acknowledges it does not have a written contract, the trial court properly dismissed the City’s complaint with prejudice. The trial court’s order is AFFIRMED.
KAHN, C.J., and THOMAS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF KEY W. v. Fla. Keys Cmty. Coll., 81 So. 3d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…expressly waived, we find that the waiver of sovereign immunity as to certain enumerated utilities in section 180.13 cannot and does not by inference apply to the City’s stormwater utility fees. See also City of Gainesville v. Fla. Dep’t of Transp., 920 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), cert. denied, 935 So. 2d 1219 (Fla.2006) (“Gainesville III ”) (rejecting a similar argument; finding that “chapter 180 does not provide a waiver of sovereign immunity for utilities authorized pursuant to chapter 403,” such as st…
-
Nicarry v. Eslinger, 990 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…ng to conditions of confinement, section 95.11(g), Florida Statutes (2004), implicitly waives sovereign immunity on these issues. Statutes purporting to waive sovereign immunity are strictly construed. City of Gainesville v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 920 So. 2d 53, 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).…
-
Bradsheer v. Fla. Dep't OF Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 20 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…ance Co. v. Natl. R.R. Passenger Corp., 908 So. 2d 459, 471-72 (Fla.2005). [*921] Any waiver must be clear and unequivocal, and cannot be implied or inferred. See Am. Home Assurance Co. at 472; see also City of Gainesville v. State Dept. of Transp., 920 So. 2d 53, 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Here, Appellants have failed to cite any legislative enactment waiving the States immunity to the claims in Counts IV and V. Instead, they argue that the constitutional provisions cited are self-executing, thereby making a…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spangler v. Fla. State Tpk. Auth., 106 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1958)
- City OF Gainesville v. State, 778 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- State ex rel. v. The Honorable R. Hudson Oliff, 350 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Blockbuster Video, Inc. v. State, 714 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Seaside Props., Inc. v. State Rd. Dep't of the State of Fla. & Monroe Cnty., 121 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)