FYFFE v. FLOWERS (2026)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

George FYFFE and Marlene Fyffe, Appellants, v. Ereck FLOWERS and Everald Flowers, Appellees.

No. 3D25-1101

Decided: October 22, 2026

Before LINDSEY, MILLER and GOODEN, JJ.

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.

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․”).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network