GEORGE FYFFE, ET AL.
v.
ERECK FLOWERS, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
When parties do not specify 'business day' for a payment date, the time period is calculated using calendar days running from midnight to midnight, and a party cannot avoid notice by deliberately ignoring available information.
[1] When parties to a contract do not expressly use the term 'business day' in specifying a time period for performance, the period is calculated in calendar days running con…
[2] A party cannot avoid constructive notice of information by deliberately closing its eyes or ears to available information.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“day, which is implied in the payment provision, generally refers to a natural or calendar day, which is a consecutive 24-hour day running from midnight to midnight”
Explaining how to calculate time periods when parties do not specify 'business day'
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge and Marlene Fyffe appealed a judgment from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County in a dispute with Ereck Flowers and Everald Flowers.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contract Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 22, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-1101
Lower Tribunal No. 16-1164-CA-01 George Fyffe and Marlene Fyffe,
Appellants,
VS.
Ereck Flowers and Everald Flowers, Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Eig, Judge.
Henriques Law & Mediation, P.A., and Genevive Leonie Henriques, for appellants.
Law Offices of Adam J. Steinberg, P.A., and Adam J. Steinberg, and Robyn DiTocco (Fort Lauderdale), for appellees. Before LINDSEY, MILLER and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Fowler v. Gartner, 89 So. 3d 1047, 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“But the parties did not use business day with regard to the payment date. This suggests different methods of calculating time for each event. Moreover, day, which is implied in the payment provision, generally refers to a natural or calendar day, which is a consecutive 24-hour day running from midnight to midnight. In calculating days, therefore, the time extends to midnight.") (citation modified); Crown Gen. Stores, Inc. v. Ultra Meat Mkt., Inc., 843 So. 2d 287, 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“[A] person has no right to shut his eyes or ears to avoid information, and then say that he has no notice. . . .”).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Crown Gen. Stores, Inc. v. Ultra Meat Mkt., Inc., 843 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Fowler v. Gartner, 89 So. 3d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)