FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 16, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 10804 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 6 0 1 3 0 - C V- KA M U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f , v ersu s RANCH LOCATED AT 5 6 0 0 SOUTHW ES T 6 1 ST A V E N U E , D A V I E , F L O R I D A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e , J O S E F E RN A N D O P U E L L O - M O N T O Y A , C la im a n t- A p p e lle e , T H E M O R A G R O U P , I N C ., I n te r e s te d - P a r ty - A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 16, 2006)2

B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T hi s appe a l i nvol ve s a F l or i da l a nd s a l e a nd pur c ha s e c ontr a c ta r i s i ng outof a gove rnm e ntf

or f e i tur e i n r e m a c t i on, 21 U . S . C . § 881( a ) ( 6) . T he M or a G r oup, I nc . ( “ M G I ” ) appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of i t s m ot i on t o e nf

or c e , a nd gr a nt of J os e F e rna ndo P ue l l o- M ont oy a ’ s e s t a t e ’ s ( “ E s t a t e ” ) m ot i on t o s e ta s i de , the court ’ s pre vi ou s orderdi re ct i ng the sa l e of the D ef endantR anch. T he di stri ctcourt f ound tha tM G I br e a c he d the c ontr a c tf ors a l e a nd pur c ha s e be tw e e n M G I a nd the E s ta te b y f

a ilin g to p o s t th e r e q u ir e d d e p o s it. F o rth e r e a s o n s s e t f o r th m o r e f

u lly b e l o w , w e a f

f i r m. I . Ba c k g r o und In F ebruary20 03 , the go vernm entfi l ed a c i vi l com pl ai ntse eki ng forf ei ture i n rem agai nsta r anch i n D avi e, F l ori da on the grou nd s thatthe ra nch’ s ow ner, J os e F e rna ndo P ue l l o- M ont oy a ( “ P ue l l o” ) , ha d pur c ha s e d the r a nc h us i ng the proceeds of drug tra ff

i cki ng . A tsom e t i m e there af t er , P uel l o d i ed and h i s w i fe , P a ol a J abba , w a s s ubs t i tut e d a s the c l a i m a ntt o the r a nc h. I n M a y 2004, the go vernm ent , Jabb a, as the hei r a nd pers on al re pres ent at i ve of the P uel l o’ s e st at e, a n d M G I f

ile d a jo in t a g r e e d m o tio n f o rp r iv a te s a le o f

th e r a n c h f

r o m th e E s ta te to M G I by the c l os i ng da t e of J une 22, 2004. T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the m ot i on3

a nd di r e c t e d the s a l e of

the r a nc h “ pur s ua ntt o the t e r m s of the de pos i tr e c e i pta nd c ontr a c tf

ors a l e a nd pur c ha s e . . . . ” N one the l e s s , i n J ul y 2004, the gove rnm e nt f i l e d a s t a tus r e por ti ndi c a t i ng tha tthe r a nc h ha d notbe e n s ol d by J une 22, 2004, th a t M G I h a d r e q u e s te d th a t th e E s ta te c o m m e n c e p r o b a te p r o c e e d in g s to e lim in a te any pot ent i al cl ai m s f

rom any c re di t ors of the E st at e, and thatthe go vernm entw as u n s u r e o f

th e tim e r e q u ir e d to c o m p le te th e p r o b a te p r o c e e d in g s . T he c ontr a c tbe tw e e n M G I a nd the E s t a t e r e qui r e d M G I t o m a ke a $50, 000 de pos i ti nt o the e s c r ow a c c ountof C ue va s & O r t i z , P . A . by 14 da y s f r om the e f f e c t i ve da t e , m e a ni ng no l a t e rtha n M a r c h 16, 2004. T he c ontr a c tc ont a i ne d the f o llo w in g p a r a g r ap h s r e g a r d in g d e f a u lt: ( a ) S e lle rD e f

a u lt: I f f o ra n y r e a s o n o th e rth a n f a ilu r e o f S e lle rto m ake S el l er ’ s t i t l e m arket abl e a ft erdi l i gentef fort , S el l erfa i l s, re fuse s or negl ec t s t o p er form thi s C on tra ct , B uyerm ay choo se t o rec ei ve a re turn o f B uyer ’ s deposi tw i tho utw ai vi ng the ri gh tt o see k d am ages o rto s e e k s p e c if

ic p e r f o r m a n c e . . . . ( b) B uy e rD e f

a ul t : I f B uy e rf a i l s t o pe r f

or m thi s C ontr a c tw i thi n the t i m e s peci fi ed, i ncl ud i ng t i m el y pay m entof al l depo si t s, S el l erm ay choo se t o ret ai n and col l ec tal l depo si t s pai d and agre ed t o b e pai d as liq u id a te d d a m a g e s o rto s e e k s p e c if ic p e r f o r m a n c e . . . . T h e c o n tr a c t a ls o p r o v id e d th a t, “[ t]im e is o f th e e s s e n c e f

o ra ll p r o v is io n s o f

th is C on tra ct . ” T he r e c or d a l s o c ont a i ne d the f ol l ow i ng doc um e nt s , w hi c h e vi de nc e the undi s put e d c ha i n of

e ve nt s be tw e e n the pa r t i e s : ( 1) M a r c h 1, 2005 l e tt e rf r om the4

E s t a t e ’ s c ouns e l t o M G I ’ s c ouns e l r e que s t i ng pr oof of the de pos i t ; ( 2) M a r c h 15, 20 05 l ett erfr om S tuartA . L i pson , E sq. st at i ng thathi s l aw offi ce had rece i ved $1 , 65 8, 00 0 t ow ar d the pu rc hase of the ra nch and thatthe m on ey had b ee n rec ei ved

“ vi a a pe ndi ng w i r e tr a ns f e r ” ; ( 3) M a r c h 16, 2005 l e tt e rf r om M G I ’ s c ouns e l t o the E s ta te ’s c o u n s e l s ta tin g th a t M G I w a s h o ld in g $ 1 ,6 4 8 ,0 0 0 in e s c r o w “w h ic h is m or e tha n s uf

f i c i e ntt o c l os e the above - r e f e r e nc e d tr a ns a c t i on” ; ( 4) M a r c h 17, 2005 le tte rf r o m th e E s ta te ’s c o u n s e l to M G I ’s c o u n s e l r e q u e s tin g p r o o f o f th e d e p o s it; ( 5 ) M a r c h 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 le tte rf r o m th e E s ta te ’s c o u n s e l to M G I ’s c o u n s e l s ta tin g th a t, if th e E s ta te d id n o t r e c e iv e p r o o f o f th e d e p o s it b y M a r c h 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , it w o u ld c o n s id e rth e c o n tr a c t in b r e a c h a n d v o id . O n M ar ch 28 , 20 05 , M G I f i l ed a m ot i on t o enforce the court ’ s order di re ct i ng the sa l e of the ra nch. M G I a ss ert ed thatthe E st at e had “ dragged i t s f ee t i n o bt ai ni ng an [o] rderfr om the P robat e C ou rt [, ] ” a nd , thu s, the cl osi ng had b ee n s ubs t a nt i a l l y de l a y e d. M G I f ur the ra l l e ge d tha t , de s pi t e i t s c ont e nt i on tha ta l l the ca sh nece ss ary t o cl ose w as i n an att orney’ s trustac coun t , the E st at e had att em pt ed t o “ sl i ther” fr om the sa l es contra ctby dem andi ng t o see , pri or t o cl osi ng , proo f that M G I had m ade the re qu i re d d eposi t . T he E st at e, al on g w i th tw o i nt erveno rs , then f i l e d a j oi ntm ot i on t o s e ta s i de the or de rdi r e c t i ng the s a l e of the r a nc h, a r gui ng tha tM G I ha d de f

a ul t e d on the s a l e a nd pur c ha s e c ontr a c tby f a i l i ng t o m a ke the5

re qu i re d d eposi ti nt o the desi gn at ed es cr ow agent s’ ac coun t s. T he E st at e f urther c o n te n d e d th a t th e d e f

a u lt c o n s titu te d a m a te r ia l b r e a c h th a t e n title d th e E s ta te to v o id th e c o n tr a c t. A f t e ra n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng, a tw hi c h M G I a dm i tt e d tha ti tha d notm a de the d e p o s it a s r e q u ir e d in th e c o n tr a c t, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d M G I ’s m o tio n to enforce the cont ra ctand g ra nt ed the E st at e’ s m ot i on t o setas i de the agree d o rder d ir e c tin g th e s a le o f

th e r a n c h . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o u n d th a t M G I ’s a s s e r tio n th a t it w a s r e a dy , w i l l i ng, a nd abl e t o c l os e di d notc ons t i tut e f ul l pe r f or m a nc e unde rthe contra ctbecause M G I had no tt i m el y m ade the depo si t , and, there fore , had b r e a c h e d th e c o n tr a c t. T h e c o u r t f u r th e rf o u n d th a t th e E s ta te w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to prov i de no t i ce of the defaul tbecause the cont ra ctcont ai ned a t i m e- i s- of-thee s s e nc e pr ovi s i on, a nd, thus , the E s t a t e w a s e nt i t l e d t o t e r m i na t e the c ontr a c t . T he courtal so re

j ec t ed M G I’ s a rgum entthatthe E st at e di d n ott i m el y i nv ok e the t i m ei s - of - the - e s s e nc e pr ovi s i on on the gr ound tha t , onc e the E s t a t e l e a rne d of the m is s in g d e p o s it, w h ic h w a s a lm o s t a y e a ra f te rth e c o n tr a c t w a s s ig n e d , th e E s ta te tim e ly m o v e d to te r m in a te th e c o n tr a c t. I I . D i s c u s s i on A . Ju r i s d i c t i on U po n rec ei ptof M C I’ s app ea l , w e c ert i fi ed the fol l ow i ng j uri sdi ct i on alWe also issued a jurisdictional question concerningpotential intervenor s: “Whether the 1 district court’s order deny ing theConrad Ang elino’s and Edw in Melendez’s motion to int ervene is imm ediately

appealable.” We do not address that issue here, however, a s the parties ha ve agree d that it is notrelevant to the instant appeal. 6 que s t i on t o the pa r t i e s f orf ur the rbr i e f

i ng: 1 W he the rthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e m a i ni ng rul i ngs i n i t s D e c e m be r22, 20 05 , order di spose of a l l of the cl ai m s a s t o al l of the part i es or ar e othe rw i s e f

i na l ori nt e r l oc ut or i l y appe a l abl e . S e e 28 U . S . C . §§ 1291, 1292; F or ga y v. C onr a d, 47 U . S . ( 6 H ow . ) 201, 204, 12 L . E d. 404 (184 8); L ockw oo d v . S no ok i es , Inc. (I n re F . D . R . H i ckory H ou se , I nc . ) , 60 F . 3d 724, 726- 27 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ; H a ne y v. C i ty of C u m m in g , 6 9 F .3 d 1 0 9 8 , 1 1 0 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ; A lta n tic F e d . S a v . & L oa n A s s ’ n v. B l y the E a s tm a n P a i ne W e bbe r , I nc . , 890 F . 2d 371, 375- 76 ( 11th C i r . 1989) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O ne P a r c e l of R e a l P r op. , 767 F . 2d 1495, 1497 ( 11th C i r . 1985) ; P i tne y B ow e s , I nc . v. M e s tr e , 701 F . 2d 13 65 , 13 68 (11th C i r. 19 83 ). M G I r es po nd ed thatw e had j uri sdi ct i on because the di stri ctcourt ’ s orderw as fi nal as t o M G I’ s c l ai m . M G I a l t ernat i vel y m ai nt ai ned thatw e had j uri sdi ct i on un der a n y o f th e s e v e r a l e x c e p tio n s to th e f in a lity ru le . S p e c if

ic a lly , M G I a r g u e d th a t its claim w as en ti re ly se p ar ate f ro m th e o th erissu es in th e c as e a n d th at th e c o u rt’s o r d e rc o n c lu s iv e ly d e te r m in e d its in te r e s t b e c a u s e th e p r o p e r ty c o u ld n o w b e s o ld t o a nothe rpa r ty . T he E s t a t e r e s ponde d tha tw e a r e w i thoutj ur i s di c t i on be c a us e the c our t ’ s or de rw a s a n i nt e r l oc ut ory or de rtha tdi d notf a l l w i thi n a ny of

the e x c e p tio n s to th e f

in a l o r d e rru le . T o be appe a l abl e , a n or de re i the rm us tbe f i na l orf a l l i nt o a s pe c i f

i c c l a s s of i nt er l ocut ory order s thatar e m ade app ea l abl e by s t atut e or j uri sprudent i al7

e xc e pt i on. 28 U . S . C . §§ 1291, 1292; A t l . F e d. S a v. & L oa n A s s ’ n v. B l y the E as tm an P ai ne W ebber, Inc. , 89 0 F . 2d 37 1, 37 5-76 (11th C i r. 19 89 ). “ A fi nal de c i s i on i s one w hi c h e nds the l i t i ga t i on on the m e r i t s a nd l e a ve s nothi ng f orthe c our tt o do bute xe c ut e the j udgm e nt . ” P i tne y B ow e s , I nc . v. M e s tr e , 701 F . 2d 13 65 , 13 68 (11th C i r. 19 83 ) ( qu ot at i on om i tt ed). If , ho w ever , the di stri ctcourt c e r t i f i e s f ori m m e di a t e r e vi e w a n or de rtha tdi s pos e s of one c l a i m orpa r ty i n a m ul t i - pa r ty l a w s ui tby s t a t i ng tha tthe r e i s no j us tr e a s on f orde l a y a nd e nt e r i ng a ju d g m e n t, w e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n p r o v id e d th a t th e o r d e ris a f in a l o r d e r . F e d .R .C iv .P . 5 4 ( b ) ; A m . F a m ily L if e A s s u r a n c e C o . v . U n ite d S ta te s F ir e I n s . C o ., 7 9 4 F .2 d 6 2 9 , 6 3 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) . T he r e a r e thr e e j udi c i a l l y c r e a t e d e xc e pt i ons t o the f i na l i ty rul e : ( 1) the col l at er al order doctri ne; (2) the do ctri ne of pract i ca l fi nal i ty; and (3) the m ar gi nal fi n al i ty ru l e. A t l . F ed . S av . & L o an A ss’ n , 8 9 0 F . 2 d at3 7 5 -7 6 ; In re M art i n B ro s. T oo l m aker s, Inc. , 79 6 F . 2d 14 35 , 14 37 (11th C i r. 19 86 ). W e c on cl ud e that j ur i s di c t i on i s notpr ovi de d he r e unde re i the rthe doc tr i ne of pr a c t i c a l f

i na l i ty orthe m ar gi nal fi nal i ty rul e. T hu s, the on l y i ss ue i s w hether w e have j uri sdi ct i on un der th e c o lla te r a l o r d e rd o c tr in e . “U n d e rth e c o lla te r a l o r d e rd o c tr in e , a c o u rt m a y e x e r c is e ap p e lla te j uri sdi ct i on i f the chal l enged o rder : (1) c on cl usi vel y det erm i nes adi sput ed8

que s t i on; ( 2) r e s ol ve s a n i m por t a nti s s ue c om pl e t e l y s e pa r a t e f r om the m e r i t s of

the ac t i on ; and (3) i s e ff

ec t i vel y unrevi ew abl e on app ea l fr om fi nal j ud gm ent . ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. B ow m a n, 341 F . 3d 1228, 1236- 37 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ; C oope r s & L y br a nd v. L i vesa y, 43 7 U . S . 46 3, 46 8-69 , 98 S . C t . 24 54 , 24 58 , 57 L . E d. 2d 35 1 (19 78 ); C ohe n v. B e ne f

i c i a l I ndus . L oa n C orp. , 337 U . S . 541, 546, 69 S . C t . 1221, 1225- 26, 9 2 L .E d . 1 5 2 8 ( 1 9 4 9 ) ; A tl. F e d . S a v . & L o a n A s s ’n , 8 9 0 F .2 d a t 3 7 6 . A n o r d e ris consi dere d eff

ec t i vel y unrevi ew abl e i f the appel l antw ou l d suffe r i rr epar abl e harm o rw o u ld n o t b e ab le to o b ta in a n a d e q u a te r e m e d y if u n ab le to s e e k ap p e lla te r e v ie w u n til th e e n try o f a f in a l ju d g m e n t. B o w m a n , 3 4 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 7 . G i ve n the f

a c t s i n thi s c a s e , w e de t e r m i ne tha tw e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde rthe c ol l a t e r a l or de rdoc tr i ne be c a us e ( 1) the or de ra ti s s ue r e s ol ve d a di s put e d que s t i on c o n c e rn in g M G I ’s c o n tr a c tu a l r ig h ts to th e r a n c h , ( 2 ) th e q u e s tio n w a s s e p a r a te f r om the m e r i t s of

the gove rnm e nt ’ s unde r l y i ng c i vi l f or f e i tur e a c t i on, a nd ( 3) the order w i l l no tbe ef

fe ct i vel y r evi ew abl e on app ea l fr om a f i nal j ud gm entbecause a j udgm e nti n the unde r l y i ng f or f e i tur e a c t i on w oul d be a n i ns uf f i c i e ntr e m e dy f

or M G I w h e r e th e r a n c h w o u ld b e s o ld to a n o th e rp a r ty . B . B re ach of th e C on tr act M G I a rgues on app ea l thatthe E st at e c ou l d n otprop er l y use the t i m e- i s- ofthe - e s s e nc e pr ovi s i on a ga i ns ti tbe c a us e the E s t a t e ha d br e a c he d the c ontr a c tby9

fa i l i ng t o d i l i gent l y c l ea r the t i t l e def ec t s. M G I c on t ends thatthe re cord es t abl i shed thatthe E st at e w ant ed t o g etou tof the cont ra ctbecause i thad rece i ved a b etter o ff

er , b u t th at fa ct sh o u ld n o t car ry an y w eig h t w ith re g ar d to M G I’s contra ctual ri gh t s. Ital so as se rt s thatthe E st at e w ai ved the t i m e- i s- of-the es se nce pr ovi s i on by c ontr i but i ng t o the de l a y i n c l os i ng, a nd tha tthe E s t a t e w a s not harm ed by the l ac k o f adepo si tbecause M G I w as re ady, w i l l i ng , and abl e t o cl ose. W e r evi ew de no vo a di stri ctcourt ’ s i nt erpret at i on of an agree m entun der trad i t i o n al co n tractp ri n ci p l es. F ran k en m u th M u t . In s. C o . v . E scam b i a C o u n ty, F l a. , 28 9 F . 3d 72 3, 72 8 (11 th C i r. 20 02 ). A di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng s of f

ac tar e r e v ie w e d f

o rc le a re rr o r . D a e w o o M o to rA m e r ic a , I n c . v . G e n e r a l M o to r s C o rp ., 4 5 9 F .3 d 1 2 4 9 , 1 2 5 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . A cc ordi ng t o F l ori da cont ra ctl aw , “ [w ] here t i m e i s of the es se nce no n ot i ce of a de f a ul ti s r e qui r e d. ” R y bovi c h B oa tW or ks , I nc . v. A tki ns , 587 S o. 2d 519, 5 2 1 (F l a. D i st . C t . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ). “ A t i m e o f th e essen ce cl au se i s n o ta st o ck p h rase butw a s i nt e nde d t o gi ve the s e l l e r s a n i m m e di a t e r i ghtt o c a nc e l the c ontr a c ti f the buy e rw e r e unabl e t o t i m e l y de m ons tr a t e a n abi l i ty t o pur c ha s e . ” I d. ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . N one the l e s s , t i m e - i s - of - the - e s s e nc e c l a us e s m a y be w a i ve d by the c onduc tof

the pa r t i e s . I d. W a i ve ri n the c ont e xtof F l or i da c ontr a c t s f

orthe pu rc hase and sal e of r ea l es t at e i s def i ned as “ a vol un t ary, i nt ent i on al10

r e lin q u is h m e n t o f

a k n o w n r ig h t o ra d v a n ta g e b y th e p u r c h a s e ro rs e lle r .” A r v illa M ot e l , I nc . v. S hr i ve r , 889 S o. 2d 887, 892 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 2004) ( quot a t i on o m itte d ) . “T h e r e c a n b e n o w a iv e ru n le s s th e p a r ty a g a in s t w h o m th e w a iv e ris in v o k e d w a s in p o s s e s s io n o f a ll th e m a te r ia l f

a c ts .” I d . H er e, th e c o n trac t w as clea r th at ti m e w as o f e ss en ce w ith re g ar d to M G I’s depo si t . M oreover, i ti s und i sput ed thatM G I never m ade the depo si tas spec i fi ed i n the c ontr a c t . T hus , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n f i ndi ng tha tM G I br e a c he d the c ontr a c tw he n i tf

a i l e d t o t i m e l y c om pl y w i th the de pos i tr e qui r e m e ntbe c a us e no n o ti ce o f th e d ef

au ltw as re q u ired . S ee R yb o v ich , 5 8 7 S o . 2 d at 5 2 1 . A s to M G I’s ar gu m entthatthe E st at e’ s c on du ctaf t erM G I f

ai l ed t o m ake the depo si tconst i tut ed a w a iv e ro f

th e tim e - is - o f

- th e - e s s e n c e p r o v is io n , th a t a r g u m e n t is w ith o u t m e r it be c a us e , a s the di s tr i c tc our tf ound, the E s t a t e di d notha ve know l e dge of the m i s s i ng de pos i tunt i l M G I a dm i tt e d s uc h. M G I doe s notdi s put e tha tf a c ton appeal , bu ti nst ea d argues thatthe E st at e c ou l d n otuse the t i m e- i s- of-the-e ss ence prov i si on agai nsti tbecause the E st at e c on tri bu t ed t o the del ay i n cl osi ng . U nd er F l or i da l a w , the E s t a t e c oul d notha ve w a i ve d the pr ovi s i on w he r e i tdi d notha ve know l e dge tha tM G I f

a i l e d t o m a ke the de pos i t , a nd, w he n i tl e a rne d of the p o te n tia l b r e a c h , it c o n ta c te d M G I f o rp r o o f o f th e d e p o s it. F in a lly , to th e e x te n t th a t M G I a s s e r ts o n ap p e a l th a t th e E s ta te f a ile d to11

di l i gent l y c l ea r t i t l e, w ant ed t o v oi d the cont ra ctbecause i thad rece i ved a bet t er offe r, or general l y c on tri bu t ed t o the del ay i n cl osi ng , the re cord es t abl i shes that M G I di d notr a i s e thos e i s s ue s be f or e the di s tr i c tc ourta nd, thus , w e w i l l not a ddr e s s the m he r e . S e e A c c e s s N ow , I nc . v. S outhw e s tA i r l i ne s C o. , 385 F . 3d 1324, 1331 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . T hi s i s e s pe c i a l l y the c a s e be c a us e M G I ’ s va r i ous a r gum e nt s do notm e e ta ny of the f i ve e xc e pt i ons w e ha ve i de nt i f i e d a s w a rr a nt i ng c o n s id e r a tio n w h e n n o t r a is e d in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, n o rd o e s M G I a r g u e a s s u c h . S ee i d . at1 3 3 2 (ex p l ai n i n g th atw e w i l l ad d ress an arg u m en trai sed fo r th e fi rst t i m e on appe a l i f: ( 1) i ti nvol ve s a pur e que s t i on of l a w tha tw oul d r e s ul ti n a m i s c a rr i a ge of

j us t i c e i f nota ddr e s s e d; ( 2) the appe l l a ntr a i s e s a n obj e c t i on tha the had n o o pp ortun i ty t o rai se i n the di stri ctcourt ; (3) the i nt er es tof subst ant i al j us t i c e i s a ts t a ke ; ( 4) the pr ope rr e s ol ut i on i s be y ond a ny doubt ; or( 5) the i s s ue p r e s e n ts s ig n if

ic a n t q u e s tio n s o f

g e n e r a l im p a c t o rg r e a t p u b lic c o n c e rn ) . I I I . C on c l u s i on U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, a nd c ons i de r a t i on of the pa r t i e s ’ br i e f

s a nd the r e l e va ntl a w , w e c onc l ude tha t , unde rF l or i da c ontr a c tl a w , M G I br e a c he d the c ontr a c tf

ors a l e a nd pur c ha s e of

the D e f e nda ntR a nc h be c a us e i tf a i l e d t o pos tthe re q u ired d ep o sit w h er e tim e w as o f th e e ss en ce . A cc o rd in g ly, th e d istrict co u rt’s order denyi ng M G I’ s m ot i on t o enforce, and g ra nt i ng the E st at e’ s m ot i on t o set12

asi d e, th e p rev i o u s o rd er d i rect i n g sal e o f th e R an ch i s AF F I RME D.