George Fyffe v. Ereck Flowers

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