[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 45 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cv -2 06 35 -KAM, BKCY No . 07 -2 10 16 -LMI InRe: SUNDALE, LTD., f.k.a . Sun da le Ass oc ia te s, Lt d., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Deb to r.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ SUNDALE, LTD., KENDALLHOTEL AND SUITES, L TD., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll an ts , ve rs us FLORIDA ASSOCIATES CAP ITAL ENT ERPRI SES, LLC, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen dant- App el le e,

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 29 , 20 12 ) Befo re MAR CUS, FAY an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-11450 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 1 of 14App el la nt s Su nd al e, LTD (“ Su nd al e”) a ndKend al l Ho te l an d S ui te s, LLC

(“ KHS”) (c ol le ct iv el y , “ Su nd al e”) app eal fro m th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t up ho ld in g the bankrupt cy co urt’s fi nd in g o f fac t an d c on cl us io ns of l aw in supp ort of a fi na l ju dg m en t i n fa vo r of Pla in ti ff/ Co un te rd efen da ntFlo rid a Ass oc ia te s Cap it al Ent erp ris es , LLC (“ FACE”). In Sund al e’s ba nkrupt cy pro ceed in gs , FACE so ug hta de cl arat ory

jud gm en t re gard in g t he ex te nt , val id it y an d p rio rit y

of t he cl ai m s i t h adth atst emm edfro m sec ur edlo an s i t h adm ad e to Sund al e; in res po ns e, Su nd al e as se rte d v ari ou s af firm at iv e d efen se s an d fi le d c ou nt ercl ai m s ag ai ns t FAC E, in cl ud in g acla im of r eco up m en t o f m or e th anth ree m il li on do ll ars in pa ym en ts Sund al e h adm ad e to FACE co nc ern in g t he sec ur edlo an s. In th is ap pe al , Sun da le arg ue s tha t: (1) th e d is tri ctco urt erredinco nc lu di ng th atth e ba nkrupt cy

co urt h adjuri sd ic ti on ov er Su nd al e’s co un te rcl ai m s; (2) th e d is tri ct co urt’s re vi ew of

th e b an krup tc y

pro ceed in gs di d n otcu re the bankrupt cy co urt’s un co ns ti tu ti on al ex erci se of ju ris di ct io n; an d (3 ) th e b an krup tc y co urt m is ap pl ie d Fl or id a la w inrul in g o n the m eri ts . After c aref ul rev ie w, we affi rm . W e rev ie w subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on de no vo . Adv en tu re Ou td oo rs , Inc . v. Bl oo m be rg , 55 2 F .3d12 90 , 12 94 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). W e rev ie w “ th e d is tri ctco urt’s de ci si on to affi rm

th e b an krup tc y

co urt d e n ov o, wh ic h a ll ows us to ass es s t he ba nkrupt cy

co urt’s jud gm en t an ew, em pl oyin g the same sta nd ardof r ev ie w th e 2 Case: 12-11450 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 2 of 14di st ric t co urt i ts el f us ed .” Inre Glo be Mfg . Cor p., 5 67 F.3d12 91 , 12 96 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). The b an krup tc y

co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs are re vi ewedfor cle ar erro r. Id. Factua l fi nd in gs are cl earl y erro ne ou s i f “ th e rev ie win g c ou rt o n t he en ti re ev id en ce i s l eftwith ade fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m m it te d.” Jo ne s v . Chi ld ers , 18 F.3d89 9, 9 04 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . “ Co nc lu si on s o f la w, whethe r fro m th e b an kr

up tc y co urt o r th e d is tri ct co urt, ar e rev ie wedde no vo .” Inre J en ni ng s, 6 70 F.3d13 29 , 13 32 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . Mix edqu es ti on s o f la w andfactare al so rev ie wedde no vo . In re Pip er Ai rcra ft C or p., 2 44 F.3d12 89 , 12 95 n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). The rel ev an t fa ct s ar e th es e. Ph il li p S cu ti eri , Jr. (“ Mr. Sc ut ie ri” ) is th e pr in ci pa l o f bo th Sund al e an d KHS. Raym on d G. Ch am be rs (“ Mr. Ch am

be rs ”), a su cces sf ul bu si ne ss m anin vo lv edin lev erag edbu y ou ts in th e 1 98 0s , hada ve ry cl os e p ers on al an d p ro fes si on al rel at io ns hi p wi th th e Scu ti eri fam il y forov er fo rty y ears . On No ve m

be r 20 , 19 97 , Mr. Scu ti eri ’s m ot he r, Delp hi ne Scu ti eri (“ Mrs . Scu ti eri ”), advi se d h er s on th atsh e b el ie ve d t ha t M r. Ch am be rs ha d t ak encert ai n as se ts fro m

he r hu sb an d’s es ta te to be gi n C ha m be rs ’s lev erag edbu y ou t b us in es s. Afte r Mrs . Scu ti eri ’s su sp ic io ns were re la y edto Mr. Ch am be rs , Mr. Ch am

be rs sen t a le tt er t o M rs . Scu ti eri in whi ch he pro m is edto “ sh are e ve ryth in g” with M rs . 3 Case: 12-11450 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 3 of 14Scu ti eri . Over the ne xtfiv e m on th s, re pr es en ta ti ve s fr om th e two pa rti es at te m pt edto res ol ve th e d is pu te be twee n t he m , andev en tu al ly Mr. Scu ti eri rel ay ed th atth e Scu ti eri s wo ul d re qu ire $4 20 ,00 0,0 00 to res ol ve th e d is pu te . The reaf te r, Mrs . Scu ti eri ap pa ren tl y ask edMr. Ch am

be rs to gi ve $1 0 m il li on to he r so n t o d ev el op a ni ne -acr e tr actof l an d i n M iam i, Fl or id a o wne d b y Su nd al e (the “ Su nd al e Pro pe rty”), with t he rem ai ni ng am ou ntdu e (ap pr ox im at el y $4 10 ,00 0,0 00 ) to be work edou t. Acco rd in g t o M r. Ch am be rs , he s ai d h e wou ld no t l oa n t he $1 0,0 00 ,00 0, b utth athe wou ldtel l h is “ fin an ci al advi so rs th atth ey , (A), he lp [Mr. Sc ut ie ri] ge t a c on ve nt io na l fi rs t m ortg ag e lo anon th e [Su nd al e Pro pe rty] an d, (B ), if t ha t l oan fe ll sh ort o f th e $ 10 ,00 0,0 00 , th at[Ch am be rs ] wou ldreco m

m en d t o t he m

th at[Ch am

be rs ’s] en ti ti es pro vi de up to $2 m il li on in a subo rd in at edsec on d m ortg ag e lo an .” A witn es s t o am eet in g b etweenth e p art ie s te st ifi edot he rwis e, atte st in g t ha t M r. Ch am be rs pro m is edto gi ve $1 0,0 00 ,00 0 a s an“ in it ia l p aym en t o f ge tt in g t he m on ie s b ackto [Mrs . Scu ti eri ]. ” Sh ortl y aft er th is m eet in g, M r. Ch am

be rs ’s rep res en ta ti ve s cr eat edFACE, th e so le pu rp os e o f whi chwas t o p ro vi de fun di ng forMr. Scu ti eri ’s Sun da le pro ject. Bet weenJu ly 30, 1 99 9, an d M arch 20 , 20 00 , FACE (an d/ or it s m em be rs ) lo an edSund al e a t ot al of $ 7,3 00 ,00 0, t hr ou gh vario us pro m is so ry no te s, p ers on al gu aran te es , andm ortg ag e an d s ecu rit y ag reem en ts . On Sep te m be r 7, 2 00 1, 4 Case: 12-11450 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 4 of 14Su nd al e cl os eda $1 2,0 00 ,00 0 l oa n wi th Ocean Ban k fo r th e Su nd al e p ro ject ( th e

“ Ocean Ban k Lo an ”). The term s o f th e ag reem en t p ro vi de d fo r FACE’s lo an s t o be reduc edto $3 ,25 0,0 00 , andforFACE to subo rd in at e it s l ie n t o t he li enof Ocean Ban k wi th res pe ctto th e rem ai ni ng in de bt edne ss . Sun da le was o bl ig at edto m ak e qua rte rly int eres t p aym en ts un ti l No ve m be r 29 , 20 02 , andth enm on th ly pa ym en ts th erea fte r. Sun da le m ad e al l i nt eres t p aym en ts du e to FACE th ro ug h May 200 5. On Dec em

be r 11 , 20 07 , bo thOcean Ban k a ndFACE se ntde fau ltno ti ces to Su nd al e. The n ex t d ay , Sun da le fil edforpro te ct io n u nd er Ch ap te r 11 of t he Uni te d S ta te s B an krup tc y Co de , andKHS di d t he same onJan uary 30 , 20 08 . On May 1, 20 08 , FACE in it ia te d t hi s ad ve rs ary pr oc eed in g b y fil in g atwo -co un t co m pl ai ntsee ki ng a de te rm in at io n o f th e ex te nt , val id it y , andpri or it y of i ts as se rte d l ie n o n t he Sund al e Pro pe rty. O n No ve m be r 17 , 20 08 , Sun da le an d KHS res po nd edby den y in g F ACE’s all eg at io ns an d a ss ert in g anu m be r of affi rm at iv e de fen se s. OnJu ly 30, 2 00 9, Su nd al e an d KHS fi le d aSeco ndAm en de d An swe r, fo r th e fi rs t t im e as se rti ng two co un te rcl ai m s, o ne see ki ng a de cl arat io n t ha t FACE’s li en s wer e n otva li d anden fo rceabl e an d o ne forreco up m en t. Bo th Sund al e’s affi rm at iv e d efen se s an d c ou nt ercl ai m s re li edup on th e sa m e factua l an d l eg al ba se s, n am el y th atFACE’s li enwas i nv al idan d u ne nf or ceab le 5 Case: 12-11450 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 5 of 14be cau se th e fu nd s advanc edby FACE were in te nd edto be a di sg ui se d l oa n a s an

in it ia l p aym en t b y

Mr. Ch am

be rs to th e Scu ti eri fam il y as p art ia l p aym en t o f th e m on ie s M r. Ch am

be rs wron gf

ul ly div ert edfro m

th e es ta te of M r. Scu ti eri ’s fathe r. The Ban krup tc y

Co urt u lt im at el y

rul edinfav or

of F ACE, fin di ng th atFACE

“ ov erwh el m in gl y

est ab li sh eda pr im a fac ie cas e th atitho ld s a v al id , per fect edli en ag ai ns t t he Sund al e Pro pe rty andth e Tru st ee Pr op ert y . Con ve rs el y , th e Defen da nt s fa il edto m eetth ei r bu rd enof p ro of in ev ery as pe ctwith re ga rdto th ei r affi rm at iv e d efen se s an d t he ir c ou nt ercl ai m s.” Th e d is tri ctco urt af firm edth e ba nkrupt cy

co urt’s d et erm in at io n o f th e ex te nt , val id it y an d p rio rity

of F ACE’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t Su nd al e, an d i t al so he ld-- fo ll owi ng th e Supr em e Co urt’s re cen t de ci si on in Ste rnv. Ma rs ha ll , 13 1 S .Ct. 2 59 4 (2 01 1) -- th atth e b an krup tc y co urt ha d t he au th or it y

to rul e o n t he se cla im s. Th e d is tri ctco urt n ot ed , inth e al te rn at iv e, th atif the ba nkrupt cy co urt h adex ceed edit s au th or it y to en te r a fi na l jud gm en t, i t was tre at in g the bankrupt cy co urt’s fi nd in gs of f

actan d c on cl us io ns of law as a rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on , whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt ad op te d a nd rat ifi ed . This ti m el y

ap pe al fol lo ws. Fi rs t, we ar e u np ers ua de d b y Sund al e’s cl ai m

th atth e b an krup tc y

co urt la ck edjuri sd ic ti on to en te r fi na l ju dg m en t o n i ts co un te rcl ai m s. Co ng res s h as di vi de d b an krup tc y

pro ceed in gs in to th ree c at eg or ie s: (1) th os e th atari se un de r 6 Case: 12-11450 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 6 of 14ti tl e 1 1; (2) th os e th atari se in a ti tl e 1 1 c as e; an d (3 ) th os e th atare re la te d t o acas e

un de r ti tl e 1 1. St ern , 13 1 S .Ct. at26 03 (ci ti ng 28 U.S.C. § 1 57 (a)) . “ Dis tri ct co urts m ay

refe r an y or a ll su ch pro ceed in gs to th e b an krup tc y jud ge s o f th ei r di st ric t,” a ndbankrupt cy

co urts m ay

“ en te r fi na l ju dg m en ts in ‘ al l co re pr oc eed in gs ari si ng un de r ti tl e 1 1, o r ari si ng in a cas e und er t it le 11 .’ ” Id . (quo ti ng §§ 15 7( a), (b )(1 )). Co ng res s h as ch os en16 sp eci fic types of p ro ceed in gs th atare co ns id eredto be “ co re p ro ceed in gs ” in whi chba nkrupt cy co urts are st atut or il y

au th or iz edto ren de r fi na l ju dg m en ts . See i d. (c it in g § § 1 57 (b )(1 )-(2 )). Sect io n 1 57 (b )(2 )(C) de fin es “ co un te rcl ai m s b y th e es ta te ag ai ns t p ers on s fi li ng cl ai m s ag ai ns t t he est at e” t o b e o ne of t he se “ co re p ro ceed in gs .” “ Part ie s m ay ap pe al fin al jud gm en ts of aba nkrupt cy co urt i n c or e p ro ceed in gs to th e d is tri ct co urt, wh ic h re vi ews th em un de r tr ad it io na l ap pe ll at e st an da rd s.” Id . at 2 60 3- 04 . St ern in vo lv eda to rti ou s i nt erfe ren ce co un te rcl ai m , ari si ng un de r st at e co m m on law, wh ic h t he ba nkrupt cy co urt h adde te rm in edto be a “ co re pr oc eed in g” as d efi ne d b y § 1 57 (b )(2 )(C) . See i d. at26 01 -0 2. Aft er d et erm in in g itha d ju ris di ct io n o ve r th e m at te r, th e b an krup tc y co urt re nd ereda fi na l ju dg m en t on th e st at e law cou nt ercl ai m . See i d. at26 01 . The Supr em e Co urt d et erm in ed th atth e b an krup tc y

co urt h adth e st atut ory

au th or it y un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 57 (b ) to is su e a fi na l ju dg m en t o n the st at e la w cou nt ercl ai m , bu t tha t i t was a vi ol at io n o f 7 Case: 12-11450 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 7 of 14Arti cl e III o f th e Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n fo r Co ng res s t o c on fer t ha t au th or it y

up on th e b an kr

up tc y co urt. See id . The Supr em e Co urt u lt im at el y he ldth at“ [t]he Ban kr up tc y Co urt b el ow l ack edth e co ns ti tu ti on al au th or it y to en te r a fi na l jud gm en t o n ast at e la w cou nt ercl ai m th atis no t re so lv edin th e p ro ces s o f ru li ng on a cred it or ’s pro of

of c la im .” Id . at 2 62 0. Th e Supr em e Co urt al so m ad e cl ear th atitdi d n otin te ndit s d eci si on in Ste rnto ha ve bro adim pl ic at io ns : “ W e d o n ot th in k t he rem ov al of c ou nt ercl ai m s s uc h a s [t he de bt or ’s] fro m co re b an kr

up tc y juri sd ic ti on m ean in gf

ul ly chan ge s t he di vi si on of l ab or inth e cu rren t s ta tu te ; we ag ree wi th th e Uni te d S ta te s tha t t he qu es ti on pre se nt edhe re i s a ‘na rro w’ on e.” Id . As the di st ric t co urt ex pl ai ne d, St ern is in ap pl ic ab le he re. Tha t ca se in vo lv eda to rti ou s i nt erfe ren ce co un te rcl ai m th atwas a“ st at e law act io n in de pe nd en t o f th e fed eral ba nkrupt cy law an d n otne ces saril y

res ol vabl e b y

a ru li ng on th e cre di to r’s pr oo f of cla im in ba nkrupt cy .” Id . at 2 61 1. Th e co m pl ai nt in Ste rnwas fi le d b y

a cred it orsee ki ng a de cl arat io n t ha t h is de fam at io n c la im was no t d is ch arg eab le in th e b an krup tc y pro ceed in gs . Id. at26 01 . The “pr oo f of cl ai m ” atis su e was “ fo r th e d efam at io n a ct io n, m ean in g t ha t [t he cred it or ] so ug ht to reco ve r da m ag es for[th e cl ai m ] fro m [th e] ban krup tc y

est at e.” Id . The d eb to r

“ res po nd edto [th e cre di to r]’ s i ni ti al co m pl ai ntby ass ert in g t ru th as ade fen se to 8 Case: 12-11450 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 8 of 14th e al le ge d d efam at io n a ndby fili ng a co un te rcl ai m forto rti ou s i nt erfe ren ce.” Id . Tha t co un te rcl ai m

all eg edth atth e cre di to r “ ha d wro ng fu ll y pre ve nt ed[th e de bt or ’s hu sb an d] fro m

tak in g the leg al st ep s n eces sa ry to pro vi de [th e d eb to r] wit h h al f hi s p ro pe rty.” Id. The co un te rcl ai m forto rti ou s i nt erfe ren ce was th e cl ai m de em edby the Supr em e Co urt t o b e a “ st at e la w act io n i nd ep en de ntof t he fed eral bankrupt cy

law an d n otne ces sa ril y

res ol vabl e b y

a ru li ng on th e cre di to r’s pr oo f of cla im in ba nkrupt cy .” Id . at 2 61 1. Here, the st at e la w cou nt ercl ai m Sund al e tr av el s o n i n i ts bri ef i s reco up m en t -- an d a s the Flo rid a st at e co urts ha ve expl ai ne d, re co up m en t i s “ a pu rel y de fen si ve m at te r sp rin gi ng fro m th e sa m e tr an sa ct io n a s t he pl ai nt iff s’ cau se of a ct io n, wh ic h i s av ai labl e o nl y to reduc e o r sa ti sf

y a pl ai nt iff

s’ cla im . . . . A reco up m en t d efen se is an al og ou s t o aco m pu ls ory co un te rcl ai m , inth atbo th ‘spr in g’ fro m

th e sa m e tr an sa ct io n a s t he pl ai nt iff’s cau se of a ct io n.” Kell og g v . Fo wler , W

hi te , Burne tt , Hurl ey , Ban ic k & Str ic kr oo t, P.A., 80 7 S o. 2 d 6 69 , 67 0 n.2 (Fl a. 4t h Di st . Ct. Ap p. 2 00 1) (ci ti ng Met ro po li ta n C as . Ins . Co. o f N.Y. v. W al ke r, 9 So .2d36 1, 3 62 (Fl a. 19 42 )). Su nd al e arg ue s t o u s t ha t FAC E’ s p ro of of cl ai m hi ng edon th e m on ey

th atSund al e h adno t p ai d F ACE, wher eas it s reco up m en t co un te rcl ai m hi ng edon th e m on ey

th atSund al e h adpa idto FACE. Su nd al e th us arg ue s t ha t re so lv in g t he pro of of c la im wou ldno t re so lv e it s 9 Case: 12-11450 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 9 of 14co un te rcl ai m . This di st in ct io n i s wi th ou t m eri t. In de ed , th e cru x o f Su nd al e’s

cas e th eo ry

is th atno ne of the m on ey FACE tra ns ferr edto Sund al e was ev er in te nd edto be a lo an , bu t ra th er the fir stof m an y pa ym en ts Mr. Ch am

be rs was t o m ak e to th e Scu ti eri fam il y to sat is fy a $4 20 ,00 0,0 00 de bt . Sun da le rel ie d o n t hi s th eo ry to adva nc e num ero us affi rm at iv e d efen se s ag ai ns t FAC E’ s p ro of of c la im an d a s the pre m is e fo r it s re co up m en t (a ndde cl arat ory jud gm en t) c ou nt ercl ai m s. All of t he affi rm at iv e d efen se s an d t he co un te rcl ai m s t hu s h av e o ne co m m on th read-- whe th er b oth t he m on ey FACE tra ns ferr edto Sund al e an d t he m on ey th at Su nd al e la te r tr an sf

erre d b ackto FACE was p rem is edon a lo anby FACE (FACE’s v ers io n) or arep aym en t b y FACE (Su nd al e’s ve rs io n) . As a res ul t, a reject io n o f Su nd al e’s ve rs io n o f th e ev en ts as d efen se s t o F ACE’s cla im s al so un de rm in es Sund al e’s co un te rcl ai m s. Si m il arl y , a fin di ng in fav orof S un da le on it s d efen se s t o F ACE’s cla im s wo ul d n eces sa ril y res ul t i n afav or ab le rul in g fo r Su nd al e o n i ts cou nt ercl ai m s. Eit he r way , a res ol ut io n o f th e p ro of of c la im ne ces sa ril y

res ol ve s t he reco up m en t an d d ecl arat ory jud gm en t co un te rcl ai m s. Su nd al e al so see m s t o s ug ge stth atun de r St ern , a ba nkrupt cy co urt o nl y

ha s juri sd ic ti on to en te r fi na l ju dg m en t o n fe de ral ba nkrupt cy law cl ai m s -- an d n o st at e la w cla im s. Ho wev er, the Supr em e Co urt m ad e n o s uc h d is ti nc ti on . Und er th e cl ear l an gu ag e o f th e d eci si on , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t b an krup tc y co urts 10 Case: 12-11450 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 10 of 14la ck“ th e co ns ti tu ti on al au th or ity to en te r a fi na l ju dg m en t o n ast at e la w co un te rcl ai m

th atis no t re so lv edin th e p ro ces s o f ru li ng on a cred it or ’s pro of of cl ai m .” 13 1 S .Ct. at26 20 (em ph as is ad de d) . Becau se th e u nd erl in edph ras e is in cl ud ed , itm

us t fo ll ow t ha t a b an krup tc y co urt wo ul d h av e juri sd ic ti on to en te r fin al jud gm en t o n s ta te law co un te rcl ai m s tha t ar e n eces sa ril y res ol ve d i n t he pr oc es s o f ru li ng on a cred it or ’s pro of of c la im . See al so id . at 2 61 8 (b an krup tc y co urt juris di ct io n t o e nt er fi na l ju dg m en t ex is ts if “ th e act io n a t i ss ue st em s fr om th e b an krup tc y

it se lf o r wou ldne ces sa ril y be res ol ve d i n t he cla im s al lo wan ce pr oc es s” ). Insh ort, b ecau se Sund al e’s co un te rcl ai m s ar e n eces sa ril y res ol ve d b y res ol ut io n o f FACE’s pr oo f of cla im , th e se lf- de cl aredna rro w ho ld in g i n S te rnis di st in gu is habl e fro m

th e fac ts be fo re u s. Th eref or e, we ag ree wi thth e d is tri ct co urt t ha t t he ba nkrupt cy co urt h adjuri sd ic ti on to en te r a fi na l ju dg m en t i n t hi s cas e. W e al so fin d n o m eri t t o S un da le ’s arg um en t t ha t t he ba nkrupt cy co urt erred in ap pl y in g F lo rid a la w. As fo r Su nd al e’s cl ai m th atth e b an krup tc y

co urt m is in te rp ret edFlo rid a la w by ho ld in g t ha t Su nd al e co ul d n otha ve reas on ab ly rel ie d o n F ACE’s mis rep res en ta ti on s b ecau se th ey were m ad e inanadve rs ari al co nt ex t, the lo wer co urt re li edon bi nd in g El ev en th Cir cu itcas e la w, inth e Fl or id a 11 Case: 12-11450 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 11 of 14la w con te xt , whi ch co nc lu de d tha t “ pl ai nt iff s wer e u nju st ifi edinrel y in g o n rep res en ta ti on s m ad e b y

th e d efen da nt s” si nc e, am on g o th er thi ng s, “ th e p art ie s ha d b een in anadve rs ari al rel at io ns hi p s in ce wel l b efo re the ex ecu ti on of t he Agr eem en t.” M erg en s v . Drey fo os , 16 6 F .3d11 14 , 11 18 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Mo reo ve r, al l o f th e Fl or id a st at e cas es Sund al e ci te s s eem to res t o n t he pri nc ip le th aton e p art y

ha d n o n ot ic e th atth e o th er p art y co ul d n otbe be li ev ed . See, e.g ., Green e v . Kol pa c Bu il de rs , Inc ., 54 9 S o. 2 d 1 15 0, 1 15 2 (F la . 3dApp . Dis t. 1 98 9) (al lo win g am is rep res en ta ti oncla im “ [a]bs en t ci rcu m st an ces whi chwou ldha ve pu t Gre en e o n n ot ic e th atKol pa k’s wo rdco ul d n otbe be li ev ed ”); Sch lapp er v . Mau rer, 6 87 So . 2d98 2, 9 84 (Fl a. 5t h Ap p. Di st . 19 97 ) (a l awy er’s “pr of es si on al res po ns ib il it y

owedto th e co urt an d t he op po si ng pa rti es im po se d o n h im

an ob li ga ti on no t t o l ie ab ou t o r m is rep res en t fa ct s cr it ic al to th e cas e” (e m ph as is rem ov ed )). Giv enth e h is to ry of t he pa rti es in th is cas e, itcan no t b e sa idth at Su nd al e h adno no ti ce o f Mr. Ch am be rs ’s dea li ng s wi th th em . Thu s, the lo wer co urt d idno t m is ap pl y

th e Fl or id a la w of m is rep res en ta ti on . As fo r Su nd al e’s cl ai m

th atth e b an krup tc y

co urt’s an al y si s o f du res s im pr op erl y rel ie d o n i ts sp ecu la ti ve fin di ng th atSund al e co ul d h av e o bt ai ne d fu nd s b y m ortg ag in g t he un de ve lo pe d a djac en t p ro pe rty, the ba nkrupt cy co urt rel ie d o n v ari ou s o th er fa ct or s i n re ach in g t he co nc lu si on th atSund al e was no t 12 Case: 12-11450 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 12 of 14un de r fi na nc ia l dur es s. Mo reo ve r, th e b an krup tc y co urt re li edon reco rdev id en ce to fin d t ha t the un de ve lo pe d a djac en t p ro pe rty was u ne nc um be red , andSund al e fai ls to off

er an yth in g m or e th ansp ecu la ti on to su gg es t t ha t i t co ul d n othave ob ta in eda m ortg ag e o n tha t p ro pe rty at th e ti m e o f th e al le ge d dur es s as itdi d a y ear l at er. As fo r Su nd al e’s cl ai m

th atth e b an krup tc y

co urt erredin fin di ng th atth e de bt or s co ul d n otpro ve m is rep res en ta ti on s re la ti ng to th e 1 99 9 t ran sa ct io ns ba se d on th e ex ecu ti on of t he 20 01 do cu m en ts , as wel l as it s cl ai m th atth e b an krup tc y co urt’s co nc lu si on th atFACE was e nt it le d t o s eeksubo rd in at io n was cir cu la r, Su nd al e ci te s n o c as e la w or l eg al arg um en t fo r th es e is su es inhi s b rie f an d th eref or e h as waiv edth em . See Fed . R.App . P. 28 (a)( 9) (A) (p ro vi di ng th atan ap pe ll an t’s b rie f m

us t s etforth hi s “ co nt en ti on s an d t he reas on s fo r th em , with ci ta ti on s t o t he au th or it ie s an d p art s o f th e rec or d o n wh ic h t he ap pe ll an t re li es ”); Co nt in en ta l Tec h. Se rv s., In c., v. Ro ckwell Int ’l Cor p., 9 27 F.2d11 98 , 11 99 (11 th Ci r. 19 91 ). Furth er, b ecau se th ere was no erro r in th e ru li ng s o n dur es s an d m is rep res en ta ti on , th es e arg um en ts fai l. Fi na ll y , Sun da le cla im s t ha t t he ba nkrupt cy co urt erredinco nc lu di ng th at th e n ot es pa y ab le to FACE an d m ortg ag es inFACE’s fav orwere en fo rceabl e, be cau se , itsays, Sund al e rec ei ve d n o c on si de rat io n fr om FACE. As anin it ia l 13 Case: 12-11450 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 13 of 14m at te r, Su nd al e d oe s n otdi sp ut e th atFACE’s subo rd in at io n i n 2 00 1 o f it s s ecu rit y

in te res t i n t he Sund al e p ro pe rty to Oc ean Ban k’s s ecu rit y in te res t co ns ti tu te d co ns id erat io n. Su nd al e arg ue s, n on ethe le ss , th atFACE’s earl ie r “ lo an s” to Su nd al e d idno t co ns ti tu te co ns id erat io n b ecau se th e m on ey cam e fro m

Mr. Ch am be rs ’s tru st s o r ot he r so ur ces , rathe r th anfro m FACE it se lf. Ho wev er, Su nd al e ad m it s t ha t s om e o f th es e ear li er tran sf ers were i n fa ctm ad e in FACE’s na m e, se e Bl ue Br. at5, an d c it es no th in g fo r th e p ro po si ti onth atth es e tr an sf ers co ul d n otbe co ns id eredva li d c on si de rat io n fr om FACE. AFFIRMED.

14 Case: 12-11450 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 14 of 14