In Erica Lavina v. Florida Prepaid College Board, plaintiffs Andrea Darlow and Erica Lavina purchased college tuition savings plans for their daughters in 2004 and 2006. The Florida Prepaid College Board, an arm of the state, guaranteed coverage for tuition at Florida public institutions.
When the daughters attended out-of-state colleges, the Board refused to transfer funds equivalent to a "tuition differential" fee that would have been waived had they attended Florida schools. Darlow and Lavina sued, alleging the Board’s refusal violated the Contracts and Takings Clauses.
The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, ruling the suit was barred by the Eleventh Amendment because it effectively sought a refund from the state. The Eleventh Circuit agreed that sovereign immunity barred the suit but vacated the dismissal with prejudice.
Chief Judge William Pryor, writing for the court, concluded that the requested relief amounted to specific performance of a contract to which the State was a party. The court cited Supreme Court precedent establishing that Ex parte Young does not permit such actions against state officers.
The plaintiffs argued the suit sought prospective relief to cure an ongoing violation. The court distinguished their case from Maron v. Chief Financial Officer of Florida, noting that the property interest in Maron was not based on a contract between an individual and the State.
The court also rejected reliance on Lipscomb v. Columbus Municipal Separate School District, a Fifth Circuit decision allowing specific performance of a state contract. The Eleventh Circuit held Lipscomb conflicted with binding Supreme Court precedents and its own decision in Tamiami Partners, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla.
The court remanded the case with instructions to dismiss without prejudice, noting that a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a judgment on the merits.