Background
George and Marlene Fyffe appealed a ruling of the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County in their dispute with Ereck and Everald Flowers. The Third District’s brief per curiam opinion does not describe the underlying facts, the circuit court’s ruling, or the specific relief sought on appeal.
The court cited decisions addressing two principles: when an agreement uses “business day” in one provision but merely “day” in another, the latter ordinarily means a calendar day ending at midnight; and a person may not deliberately avoid available information and then claim lack of notice.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. It issued no separate factual analysis and did not identify an independent ground for affirmance beyond citations to Fowler v. Gartner and Crown General Stores, Inc. v. Ultra Meat Market, Inc.
The affirmance therefore left the lower court’s ruling intact. The opinion’s citations indicate that the governing principles concerning calendar-day calculations and constructive notice supported the result, but the court did not explain how those principles applied to the parties’ particular facts.
Key Takeaways
- When contractual language distinguishes “business days” from “days,” an unqualified “day” ordinarily means a calendar day running until midnight.
- A party cannot avoid information and later rely on claimed lack of notice.
- The Third District affirmed without a written discussion of the record or the precise basis of the circuit court’s ruling.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of using precise timing language in agreements and of distinguishing calendar days from business days. It also reinforces that parties may be charged with notice when they deliberately avoid available information.
Because the opinion is a citation-only affirmance with little factual detail, its practical significance lies chiefly in its application of existing Third District precedent rather than in announcing a new legal rule.