Opinion ID: 44882
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Breach of the Contract

Text: MGI argues on appeal that the Estate could not properly use the time-is-ofthe-essence provision against it because the Estate had breached the contract by 8 failing to diligently clear the title defects. MGI contends that the record established that the Estate wanted to get out of the contract because it had received a better offer, but that fact should not carry any weight with regard to MGI’s contractual rights. It also asserts that the Estate waived the time-is-of-the essence provision by contributing to the delay in closing, and that the Estate was not harmed by the lack of a deposit because MGI was ready, willing, and able to close. We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of an agreement under traditional contract principles. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Escambia County, Fla., 289 F.3d 723, 728 (11th Cir. 2002). A district court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. Daewoo Motor America, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 459 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2006). According to Florida contract law, “[w]here time is of the essence no notice of a default is required.” Rybovich Boat Works, Inc. v. Atkins, 587 So. 2d 519, 521 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991). “A time of the essence clause is not a stock phrase but was intended to give the sellers an immediate right to cancel the contract if the buyer were unable to timely demonstrate an ability to purchase.” Id. (quotation omitted). Nonetheless, time-is-of-the-essence clauses may be waived by the conduct of the parties. Id. Waiver in the context of Florida contracts for the purchase and sale of real estate is defined as “a voluntary, intentional 9 relinquishment of a known right or advantage by the purchaser or seller.” Arvilla Motel, Inc. v. Shriver, 889 So. 2d 887, 892 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (quotation omitted). “There can be no waiver unless the party against whom the waiver is invoked was in possession of all the material facts.” Id. Here, the contract was clear that time was of essence with regard to MGI’s deposit. Moreover, it is undisputed that MGI never made the deposit as specified in the contract. Thus, the district court did not err in finding that MGI breached the contract when it failed to timely comply with the deposit requirement because no notice of the default was required. See Rybovich, 587 So. 2d at 521. As to MGI’s argument that the Estate’s conduct after MGI failed to make the deposit constituted a waiver of the time-is-of-the-essence provision, that argument is without merit because, as the district court found, the Estate did not have knowledge of the missing deposit until MGI admitted such. MGI does not dispute that fact on appeal, but instead argues that the Estate could not use the time-is-of-the-essence provision against it because the Estate contributed to the delay in closing. Under Florida law, the Estate could not have waived the provision where it did not have knowledge that MGI failed to make the deposit, and, when it learned of the potential breach, it contacted MGI for proof of the deposit. Finally, to the extent that MGI asserts on appeal that the Estate failed to 10 diligently clear title, wanted to void the contract because it had received a better offer, or generally contributed to the delay in closing, the record establishes that MGI did not raise those issues before the district court and, thus, we will not address them here. See Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004). This is especially the case because MGI’s various arguments do not meet any of the five exceptions we have identified as warranting consideration when not raised in the district court, nor does MGI argue as such. See id. at 1332 (explaining that we will address an argument raised for the first time on appeal if: (1) it involves a pure question of law that would result in a miscarriage of justice if not addressed; (2) the appellant raises an objection that he had no opportunity to raise in the district court; (3) the interest of substantial justice is at stake; (4) the proper resolution is beyond any doubt; or (5) the issue presents significant questions of general impact or great public concern).