Reese, Presiding Judge. Valorie Patrick sued the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (the “Board”) for breach of contract after she was dismissed from Valdosta State University’s nursing program. The trial court dismissed her suit, finding that it was barred by sovereign immunity. On appeal, Patrick argues that her admission letter, Valdosta’s graduate student handbook, and the university student handbook, taken together, constitute a written contract that waives sovereign immunity. We disagree, and for the reasons set forth infra, affirm the trial court’s dismissal of her complaint. The facts relating to the issue of sovereign immunity are largely undisputed.[1] In 2013, Patrick received an acceptance letter from Valdosta’s graduate school of nursing. The one-page letter was signed by the interim dean of the school. It informed Patrick: “You are responsible for familiarizing yourself with the regulations of your department of study and those of the Graduate School. You can find the Graduate School policies in the Graduate School Catalog.” The graduate school catalog contained an academic grievance section, which set forth the grievance and appeal procedure, and notified graduate students that they must also adhere to the regulations in the Valdosta student handbook. Valdosta dismissed Patrick from the nursing program after she received a failing grade in a lab course. According to Patrick, she only received a failing grade because of problems in submitting assignments to the school online portal. Although Patrick filed several internal appeals at Valdosta, the school declined to change her grade. She later applied for readmission to the nursing program, but Valdosta rejected her application. Patrick sued the Board, asserting three claims for breach of contract. She alleged that the Board: (1) failed to follow the appeal and readmission processes set forth in the student handbook; (2) dismissed her from the nursing program without a hearing, in violation of the social code from the student handbook; and (3) breached the “terms and conditions for [her] classes” by failing to maintain the online portal. The Board filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of sovereign immunity, which the trial court granted. This appeal followed. “We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity de novo because it is a matter of law.”[2] Patrick has the burden of proof as the party seeking to demonstrate a waiver of sovereign immunity.[3] With these guiding principles in mind, we now turn to Patrick’s sole claim of error. Patrick argues that the trial court erred in finding that she did not have an express, written contract with the Board, which would waive the Board’s sovereign immunity. Specifically, she contends that the graduate handbook, the student handbook, and the admission letter, taken together, constitute a binding contract with the Board. She also argues that signatures from both parties are not required to create a contract waiving sovereign immunity. “The doctrine of sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, protects all levels of governments from legal action unless they have waived their immunity from suit.”[4] Sovereign immunity applies to the Board.[5] However, the State has waived sovereign immunity for breach of a written contract.[6] “General rules of contract law that might otherwise support a claim for breach of contract damages between private parties . . . will not support a claim against the state or one of its agencies if the contract is not in writing so as to trigger the waiver of sovereign immunity.”[7] That is because “[t]he doctrine of sovereign immunity requires that the conditions and limitations of the statute that waives immunity be strictly followed[.]“[8] Thus, a party may not recover for breach of contract against the State based on an implied contract, on a theory of quantum meruit, or by the parties’ course of conduct even if a document exists that would otherwise supply the material terms of the alleged contract.[9] When determining if multiple documents form an express contract that waives sovereign immunity, “[a] valid written contract may be formed when there are multiple, signed, contemporaneous agreements between the parties which demonstrate their intent to enter into a binding contract and the individual documents, considered together, include all of the necessary terms of a contract.”[10] In this case, the acceptance letter, graduate handbook, and student handbook did not constitute a written contract that waived sovereign immunity. None of the documents were signed by both parties.[11] Additionally, the offer letter’s statement to Patrick to “familiariz[e]” herself with the student handbooks and department regulations failed to demonstrate an intent by the Board for the student handbooks to become a binding contract.[12] At best, the conduct of Patrick and the Board might demonstrate the existence of an implied contract, but as noted previously, that is not enough to waive sovereign immunity.[13] The only case Patrick cites to where this Court held that an unsigned writing waived sovereign immunity is Ga. Lottery Corp. v. Patel.[14] In that case, we held that a scratch-off lottery ticket constituted a written contract that waived sovereign immunity.[15] However, Patel is not binding precedent.[16] Yet, even if Patel were binding, it is distinguishable for two reasons. First, our Court in that case applied case law addressing lottery tickets as “gambling contracts” between the state and the ticket holder.[17] Second, the terms printed on the lottery ticket, including the ticket price, how to win a prize, and the process for claiming prizes, more clearly indicated an intention to enter into a contract between the Georgia Lottery Corporation and the ticket holder than the documents referenced in this case.[18] Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Patrick did not demonstrate an express, written contract that waived sovereign immunity. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order granting the Board’s motion to dismiss. Judgment affirmed. Markle and Colvin, JJ., concur.
