Eaton told the court that there are four specific fees required by Florida law that universities must charge on-campus students, although off-campus students don’t have to pay them.
Justice Charles T. Canady pointed to the activity and service fee, which he said “shall be expended for lawful purposes to benefit the student body in general.”
“It seems to me, when I read that, that suggests this is really something closer to what the university is arguing is more like a tax,” Justice Canady said. “Just putting aside the sovereign immunity question, as a matter of just contract interpretation and once you accept that this is part of the contract, what is provided for here does not give an individual right to access particular services at a particular time.”
Joseph W. Jacquot of Gunster Yoakley & Stewart PA, representing UF, told the Florida Supreme Court that Rojas’ complaint “negates the existence of a prior express contract to waive sovereign immunity.”
“The petitioner alleges the complaint attachments are an ‘express contract for specific on-campus services during the spring and summer 2020 terms,'” Jacquot said. “Yet none of the parties agreed to such specific services. And the web pages are non-exclusive examples of possible uses of the fee.”
