Title: Villasol Community Development District v. TC 12, LLC
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC17-1293
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: October 4, 2018

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-1293 
____________ 
 
VILLASOL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, 
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
TC 12, LLC, 
Respondent. 
 
October 4, 2018 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
Villasol Community Development District seeks review of the decision of 
the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Villasol Community Development District v. 
TC 12, LLC, 226 So. 3d 854 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (table), on the ground that it 
expressly and directly conflicts with Provident Management Corp. v. City of 
Treasure Island, 796 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 2001).  After careful review, we determine 
that review in this case has been improvidently granted.  Accordingly, this case is 
hereby dismissed. 
 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and LEWIS, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. 
QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion, in which PARIENTE, J., concurs. 
 
- 2 - 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
QUINCE, J., dissenting. 
 
 
The decision below expressly and directly conflicts with Provident and 
Parker Tampa Two, Inc. v. Somerset Development Corp., 544 So. 2d 1018, 1019 
(Fla. 1989).  The majority’s decision to discharge jurisdiction is based on the Fifth 
District’s limitation of its holding to “whether sovereign immunity shields 
[Villasol] from a claim for damages that [TC 12, LLC] allegedly suffered as a 
result of an injunction [Villasol] obtained.”  Villasol Cmty. Dev. Dist. v. TC 12, 
LLC, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1038, D1038 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).  Contrary to the 
majority’s position, Provident addressed the issue of sovereign immunity. 
Generally, when a wrongfully enjoined party is entitled to damages, the 
damages are limited to the amount of the injunction bond.  Parker Tampa Two, 
544 So. 2d at 1019.  In reviewing the certified question presented in Parker Tampa 
Two, this Court recognized the majority and minority views on the issue and chose 
to “adopt the majority view and limit liability to the bond amount where the 
injunction is obtained in good faith.”  Id. at 1020.  We later considered this 
limitation of liability in the context of a sovereign that did not post a bond, 
expanding the rule adopted in Parker Tampa Two.   
In Provident, this Court held that the statutory limitation of liability found in 
section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1989), waiving the State’s sovereign immunity for 
 
- 3 - 
tort claims, does not apply to a claim for wrongful injunction against a 
governmental entity that did not post an injunction bond.  796 So. 2d at 488.  
Throughout Provident, this Court contrasted the situation in that case to the 
situation in which a governmental entity does post a bond, limiting liability to the 
amount of the bond.  See id. at 485-86, 486 n.11, 488 (citing Parker Tampa Two, 
544 So. 2d at 1018-19).  This Court held that governmental liability for wrongful 
injunction is limited to the amount of the bond “because the bond obligation is 
likened to a contractual obligation for which sovereign immunity has been 
waived.”  Id. at 486.  This Court sought “to make explicit that . . . if the full 
measure of damages is awarded, the wrongfully enjoined party should be entitled 
to recover the full measure of damages unless a bond has been posted.”  Id. at 488 
(emphasis added).   
 
Because Provident directly addresses the sovereign immunity issue and 
Parker Tampa Two, Inc., provides the general rule limiting damages to the amount 
of the bond, I would retain jurisdiction to address the express and direct conflict.  
Accordingly, I dissent. 
PARIENTE, J., concurs. 
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal – Direct 
Conflict of Decisions  
 
 
Fifth District - Case No. 5D16-774  
 
 
(Osceola County) 
 
- 4 - 
Scott D. Clark, Mitchell E. Albaugh, and Christopher M. Hamilton of Clark & 
Albaugh, LLP, Winter Park, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Karen S. Cox of Bush Ross, P.A., Tampa, Florida, 
 
 
for Respondent