Court Opinion

ID: 9891046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 15:01:31.858365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:41.226557
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11752   Document: 54-1    Date Filed: 10/17/2023   Page: 1 of 24

                                              [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit
                         ____________________

                               No. 22-11752
                         ____________________

        BRANDON BLUHM,
                               Plaintiﬀ-Counter Defendant-Appellant,
        versus
        WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS, INC., et al.,

                                                          Defendants,

        WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC.,
        a Delaware corporation,
        WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC.,
        a Delaware corporation,
        EXTRA HOLIDAYS, LLC,
        FAIRSHARE VACATION OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
USCA11 Case: 22-11752          Document: 54-1          Date Filed: 10/17/2023   Page: 2 of 24

        2                           Opinion of the Court                  22-11752

                                      Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Middle District of Florida
                      D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cv-02300-WWB-LHP
                               ____________________

        Before JORDAN, LAGOA, Circuit Judges, and CANNON,* District
        Judge.
        PER CURIAM:
               Defendants Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc. (“WVO”)
        and Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. (“WVR,” and together with
        WVO, “Wyndham”) develop and manage timeshare properties.
        Because Wyndham runs its timeshare program primarily for
        timeshare owners’ personal use, it generally prohibits those own-
        ers from profiting by using their Wyndham interests. But on the
        occasions that Wyndham’s timeshare owners cannot use their
        timeshare rights before the year is out, Wyndham permits owners
        to rent their otherwise unusable timeshare rights to friends and
        family members through its “Extra Holidays” program.
               Plaintiff Brandon Bluhm misused Extra Holidays to run a
        for-profit business. When Wyndham discovered Bluhm’s misuse,

        * Honorable Aileen M. Cannon, United States District Judge for the Southern

        District of Florida, sitting by designation.
USCA11 Case: 22-11752     Document: 54-1      Date Filed: 10/17/2023    Page: 3 of 24

        22-11752              Opinion of the Court                        3

        a lawsuit ensued, which resulted in a negotiated settlement with
        Bluhm. This appeal concerns whether that settlement agreement
        is a valid contract. The district court concluded that it was and
        granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. After a careful
        review of the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we
        affirm.
                             I.     BACKGROUND
              A. Bluhm Purchases and Rents Timeshare Properties.
               WVO and WVR develop and manage timeshare resorts.
        Buyers of Wyndham timeshare interests enter into Purchase
        Agreements with WVR. In those Purchase Agreements, buyers
        represent that they are “purchasing an Ownership for the purposes
        of recreational and social use, and not for financial profit.” Wynd-
        ham maintains a points-based system for managing owners’
        timeshare interests. Over several years before 2017, Bluhm ac-
        quired an astonishing number of Wyndham timeshare interests—
        about seventy interests worth eighteen million points.
                Owners of Wyndham timeshare interests, like Bluhm, as-
        sign their use rights to a trust known as Club Wyndham Plus,
        which is governed by a Trust Agreement. As provided by the Trust
        Agreement, Defendants Fairshare Vacation Owners Association
        (“Fairshare”) and WVR, along with other Wyndham affiliates, are
        the settlors of the trust. Fairshare is the trustee. And the Club
        Wyndham Plus beneficiaries are Fairshare, WVR, other Wyndham
        affiliates, and “Members.” Members include “Wyndham and the
        holder of a right to occupy an Accommodation as a consequence
USCA11 Case: 22-11752       Document: 54-1        Date Filed: 10/17/2023      Page: 4 of 24

        4                        Opinion of the Court                    22-11752

        of such holder having his Property Interests (or the use rights
        therein) subjected to this Trust Agreement, and such holder’s heirs,
        and permitted successors and assigns.” 1 Club Wyndham Plus also
        maintains a members’ directory, which advises members that
        “[t]he Program is for a Member’s own personal use and enjoyment
        and not for any commercial purpose.”
               Additionally, section 2.02 of the Trust Agreement states that
        “[t]he purpose of the Trust shall be to secure for the Beneficiaries
        their respective rights and interests as set forth in this Trust Agree-
        ment and in the Purchase Agreements and/or Assignment Agree-
        ments executed by the Members.” The Trust Agreement’s choice-
        of-law clause provides that the Agreement is governed by Arkansas
        law.
                Club Wyndham Plus members may make reservations to
        stay at Wyndham properties through WVR. WVR manages the
        trust’s reservation system. An agreement between Fairshare and
        WVR’s predecessor in interest (the “Management Agreement”)
        contains “[r]ecitals,” one of which states that Fairshare “desires to
        engage Manager to manage and operate the Trust . . . and provide
        access to the Manager’s Reservation System to the Members,”
        while the management entity “desires to accept such engagement,
        all on the terms and conditions set forth below.” Neither Bluhm
        nor any other Club Wyndham Plus member signed the Manage-
        ment Agreement. And neither the Management Agreement nor

        1 There is no dispute that Bluhm was a Wyndham member at all times relevant

        to this suit.
USCA11 Case: 22-11752     Document: 54-1      Date Filed: 10/17/2023     Page: 5 of 24

        22-11752              Opinion of the Court                         5

        the Trust Agreement further defines the term “Manager’s Reserva-
        tion System.”
                Defendant Extra Holidays, LLC, is another Wyndham affili-
        ate and runs Wyndham’s “Extra Holidays” program. Through Ex-
        tra Holidays, timeshare owners can rent out their unused vacation
        time to third parties in exchange for a cut of the revenue. Wynd-
        ham and Extra Holidays encouraged Bluhm and other members to
        pursue the Extra Holidays program’s benefits. For example, in a
        letter to Bluhm, Extra Holidays described itself as “a powerful tool
        to provide you with income opportunities for your unused vaca-
        tion weeks/points, which, if you choose, can be used to partially
        offset your maintenance fee expense.”
               But this encouragement was qualified. Owners who rented
        through Extra Holidays signed Listing Agreements. Those con-
        tracts provided:
              This rental program has been designed as your last
              “non-vacation” option. Timeshares are purchased for
              vacationing; an opportunity to enjoy special mo-
              ments with family and friends. The first choice
              should always be to use or exchange your vacation
              reservation every year. And, of course, you always
              have the option of letting a friend or relative use your
              vacation reservation if you are unable to do so. Your
              last choice should be to rent your vacation. How-
              ever, we know that vacations are not always possible,
              and if you can’t use all or part of your vacation reser-
              vation this year, Extra Holidays can assist you.
USCA11 Case: 22-11752     Document: 54-1      Date Filed: 10/17/2023     Page: 6 of 24

        6                     Opinion of the Court                 22-11752

              The Extra Holidays Vacation Time Listing Program
              . . . has been designed to try to provide you with some
              income for your unused vacation reservation. This is
              not a “get rich quick” program and you are not ex-
              cused from your financial obligations to your associa-
              tion, but rather this is a service provided to help pre-
              vent any vacation from going unused.
                Bluhm did not heed these instructions. He routinely rented
        his timeshare interests through Extra Holidays to turn a profit. In
        doing so, Bluhm referred to his operation as a “business” and reg-
        istered a limited liability company. Bluhm ultimately grossed hun-
        dreds of thousands of dollars from this timeshare venture. And he
        freely admitted during his deposition that he was running a for-
        profit enterprise through Extra Holidays; in fact, in this lawsuit,
        Bluhm sought lost profits from that enterprise as damages.
               But Bluhm’s for-profit venture ran into trouble around May
        2017. At that time, WVR began using an updated online reserva-
        tion system. One of the new system’s capabilities was the systemic
        enforcement of Club Wyndham Plus rules. So Bluhm began expe-
        riencing difficulty accessing the system, often finding himself
        locked out of his account. When he complained, Wyndham was
        accommodating—at first. Wyndham representatives helped
        Bluhm make several over-the-phone reservations when he could
        not access his online account. And several times, Wyndham com-
        pensated Bluhm for his access troubles by giving him additional
        timeshare points. But Bluhm remained largely locked out of his
        online Wyndham account between May and October 2017.
USCA11 Case: 22-11752     Document: 54-1      Date Filed: 10/17/2023    Page: 7 of 24

        22-11752              Opinion of the Court                        7

               In July 2017, Bluhm began discussing payment and access is-
        sues with Wyndham representative Andres Mosquera. Wyndham
        communicated internally about potential litigation with Bluhm
        around the same time. Bluhm claims that Mosquera told him that
        Bluhm could regain access to the online reservation system only by
        divesting himself of a majority of his points—keeping only about
        five million. Bluhm attests that he was “under financial pressure”
        to regain online access, so he acquiesced to deeding back many of
        his points.
              Bluhm insists that Wyndham could have easily permitted
        him to access his account. Mosquera testified at his deposition that
        he did not personally lock Bluhm’s account, but he stated that he
        “probably reached out to someone else to lock up the account.”
        Mosquera also testified that he “assume[d]” that unblocking an ac-
        count would only require pressing a button.
               B. The Parties Enter into the Settlement Agreement.
                Bluhm and Mosquera spoke on the phone on August 16,
        2017. Mosquera emailed Bluhm later that day, attaching an “agree-
        ment [they] spoke about.” Mosquera wrote that the document
        “lists the conditions of the agreement, along with the purchased
        interests and the retained interests.” Mosquera told Bluhm that
        “[a]ll parties mentioned have to sign the agreement and the docu-
        ment needs to be notarized.” Mosquera then assured Bluhm that,
        once the agreement was executed, he would “begin the process to
        take care of the loan and right size [Bluhm’s] account.”
USCA11 Case: 22-11752      Document: 54-1      Date Filed: 10/17/2023      Page: 8 of 24

        8                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11752

                Bluhm read over the document and replied to Mosquera’s
        email, asking Mosquera for a phone call to discuss a “question”
        Bluhm had. The two spoke again on the phone, and later, Bluhm
        emailed Mosquera asking Mosquera to put “in writing . . . what we
        spoke about.” Bluhm’s email also called several paragraphs of the
        proposed agreement “vague.” Mosquera replied that “the agree-
        ment states that you may not engage in any commercial activity
        with your Wyndham account, including Extra Holidays,” but that
        “[i]f you do run into a situation where you have some points left
        over and will not have use for them, it is ok to put those into Extra
        Holidays as that is the intended use of the program.”
                On August 31, 2017, Bluhm signed the proposed agreement
        (the “Settlement Agreement”) with WVO. Bluhm testified that he
        didn’t show the Settlement Agreement to any lawyer before sign-
        ing it because he had “[n]o time” to do so. He called it “a matter
        of importance to hurry up and get [the Settlement Agreement]
        back to” Mosquera.
               The Settlement Agreement relieved Bluhm of nearly
        $200,000 in debt to Wyndham. Bluhm, in turn, sold back most of
        his timeshare points but kept a defined group of timeshare interests
        that the Settlement Agreement referred to as “Retained Interests.”
        Bluhm also agreed “not to engage in any commercial conduct of
        any type as part of [his] use of the Retained Interests, which would
        include the use of Extra Holidays, or any other Wyndham related
        entity, for the rental of [his] Retained Interests.” Bluhm testified at
        his deposition that he understood this provision to limit his use of
USCA11 Case: 22-11752      Document: 54-1      Date Filed: 10/17/2023     Page: 9 of 24

        22-11752               Opinion of the Court                         9

        Extra Holidays to less “activity [than] in the past” and that his pre-
        vious “activity that [he] had was too much.” He testified that he
        knew “there was going to be some limit on [his] ability to use Extra
        Holidays.” And he testified that he knew that the Settlement
        Agreement prohibited him from earning a profit using Extra Holi-
        days. Bluhm’s counsel likewise acknowledged at oral argument
        that Bluhm’s pre-settlement level of Extra Holidays use would
        have been impermissible under the Settlement Agreement.
               The Settlement Agreement contained mutual releases. The
        release in favor of Defendants provided:
              In consideration of the Agreement, [Bluhm] forever
              RELEASE[S], ACQUIT[S], DISCHARGE[S], AND
              AGREE[S] TO HOLD HARMLESS Wyndham, the
              Trusts, the Trustees, the Programs, and each of their
              agents, servants, affiliates, subsidiaries, parent enti-
              ties, representatives, employees, directors, board
              members, shareholders, members, beneficiaries, of-
              ficers, attorneys, and insurers, and all persons, firms,
              organizations or corporations in privity with the fore-
              going (even if such persons or entities are not specifi-
              cally named in this Agreement), and the predecessors,
              successors, and assigns of each of them (collectively,
              the “Wyndham Releasees”), of and from any and all
              claims, demands, and causes of action owned or held
              by [Bluhm] . . . which arise from and/or result from
              or in any way relate to the Timeshare Interests, in-
              cluding but not limited to any claims based on any al-
              leged representation or promise made to [Bluhm] by
              any current or former employee or agent of
USCA11 Case: 22-11752       Document: 54-1        Date Filed: 10/17/2023        Page: 10 of 24

        10                       Opinion of the Court                     22-11752

               Wyndham and/or the Trustees, its directors and of-
               ficers, or any of the other Wyndham Releasees, and
               any and all claims to date, whether or not those
               claims were specifically included in this Agreement.
        The Settlement Agreement is governed by Florida law.
              C. Bluhm Continues Renting Properties Through Extra
                         Holidays and Sues Defendants.
                The peace ostensibly brokered by the Settlement Agree-
        ment did not last long. In March 2018, Mosquera emailed Bluhm
        noting that Bluhm had “acquired a contract outside of our agree-
        ment” and that more than fifty percent of Bluhm’s 2018 reserva-
        tions were through Extra Holidays. Mosquera asserted that
        Bluhm’s actions were “in direct violation of our agreement” be-
        cause “[w]e agreed that you were only going to use Extra Holidays
        as a last resource and that is not what . . . appears to be happening.”
        Bluhm stated at his deposition that it was probably true that fifty
        percent or more of his reservations were through Extra Holidays.
        Wyndham then blocked Bluhm’s attempt to acquire a new
        timeshare interest.
               Bluhm then sued Defendants and asserted claims under the
        Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; common-law
        claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraud in the inducement,
        fraudulent concealment, and negligence; a claim for breach of the
        Arkansas Trust Code; and claims for declaratory relief. 2 Bluhm’s

        2 Bluhm first filed his suit against Defendants in the United States District

        Court for the Western District of Washington. That court eventually granted
USCA11 Case: 22-11752       Document: 54-1        Date Filed: 10/17/2023        Page: 11 of 24

        22-11752                 Opinion of the Court                             11

        claims for declaratory relief included allegations that the Settle-
        ment Agreement was void on various grounds, including that the
        Settlement Agreement is unconscionable, that Defendants fraudu-
        lently induced Bluhm into entering the Settlement Agreement, and
        that Bluhm entered the Settlement Agreement under duress. In
        response, Defendants claimed that Bluhm had released all of his
        claims against them. WVO and WVR also asserted counterclaims
        against Bluhm for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement.
                Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, ar-
        guing that the Settlement Agreement’s release nullified Bluhm’s
        “right to bring this action in its entirety.” In response, Bluhm con-
        tended that the Settlement Agreement was not binding because,
        among other reasons, (1) there was no meeting of the minds as to
        the Settlement Agreement’s essential terms, (2) Mosquera fraudu-
        lently included Bluhm into signing the Settlement Agreement, and
        (3) Bluhm entered into the Settlement Agreement under duress.
              On January 6, 2022, the district court granted summary judg-
        ment in favor of Defendants on Bluhm’s claims but denied sum-
        mary judgment as to Defendants’ counterclaims.
               After the district court entered it summary judgment order,
        the parties settled WVO and WVR’s counterclaims against Bluhm.
        This partial settlement preserved Bluhm’s right to appeal the

        Defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the United States District for the
        Middle District of Florida. Bluhm then filed his third amended complaint,
        which is the operative complaint here.
USCA11 Case: 22-11752      Document: 54-1       Date Filed: 10/17/2023       Page: 12 of 24

        12                      Opinion of the Court                    22-11752

        district court’s entry of summary judgment against him. Accord-
        ingly, Bluhm appealed.
                         II.     STANDARD OF REVIEW
               We review de novo a district court’s order granting sum-
        mary judgment. Mech v. Sch. Bd., 806 F.3d 1070, 1074 (11th Cir.
        2015). “Summary judgment is appropriate if ‘the evidence before
        the court shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material
        fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter
        of law.’” McCullough v. Antolini, 559 F.3d 1201, 1204–05 (11th Cir.
        2009) (quoting Haves v. City of Miami, 52 F.3d 918, 921 (11th Cir.
        1995)).
                “[T]he initial burden is on the party seeking summary judg-
        ment to identify the portions of the record that it believes show the
        absence of a genuine issue of material fact and to show that it is
        entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Edmondson v. Velvet Life-
        styles, LLC, 43 F.4th 1153, 1160 (11th Cir. 2022). “Once the movant
        adequately supports its motion, the burden shifts to the nonmov-
        ing party to show that specific facts exist that raise a genuine issue
        for trial.” James River Ins. Co. v. Ultratec Special Effects Inc, 22 F.4th
        1246, 1251 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting Dietz v. Smithkline Beecham
        Corp., 598 F.3d 812, 815 (11th Cir. 2010)). “When considering a
        motion for summary judgment, . . . ‘courts must construe the facts
        and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmov-
        ing party and when conflicts arise between the facts evidenced by
        the parties, [they must] credit the nonmoving party’s version.’” Fe-
        liciano v. City of Miami Beach, 707 F.3d 1244, 1252 (11th Cir. 2013)
USCA11 Case: 22-11752     Document: 54-1      Date Filed: 10/17/2023    Page: 13 of 24

        22-11752               Opinion of the Court                       13

        (second alteration in original) (quoting Davis v. Williams, 451 F.3d
        759, 763 (11th Cir. 2006)).
                                 III.   ANALYSIS
               On appeal, Bluhm argues that the district court erroneously
        shifted Defendants’ summary-judgment burden onto him. He also
        asserts that genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary
        judgment as to three of his challenges to the Settlement Agree-
        ment’s validity: (1) that there was no meeting of the minds on the
        commercial-use prohibition, which he argues was an essential
        term; (2) that Wyndham fraudulently induced him to enter the Set-
        tlement Agreement; and (3) that he entered the Settlement Agree-
        ment under duress. We address these arguments in turn.
            A. The District Court Did Not Improperly Shift the Sum-
                       mary-Judgment Burden onto Bluhm.
               We turn first to Bluhm’s argument that the district court im-
        properly shifted the initial summary-judgment burden onto him by
        “presum[ing] the validity of the Settlement Agreement” without
        requiring Defendants to “address[] [his] claims” that the Settlement
        Agreement was invalid.
                As the parties moving for summary judgment, Defend-
        ants—who raised the release as an affirmative defense—bore the
        burden of making a prima facie case that the Settlement Agreement
        was a valid contract. See Edmondson, 43 F.4th at 1160. Bluhm as-
        serts that Defendants did not carry this burden and that the district
        court instead simply “presumed the validity of the Settlement
        Agreement.” We disagree.
USCA11 Case: 22-11752     Document: 54-1      Date Filed: 10/17/2023     Page: 14 of 24

        14                     Opinion of the Court                 22-11752

               “Under Florida law, settlement agreements are interpreted
        and governed by principles of contract law.” Cableview Commc’ns of
        Jacksonville, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable Se., LLC, 901 F.3d 1294, 1301
        (11th Cir. 2018). “Florida contract law provides that a party may
        rescind an agreement for duress if that party can show that the con-
        tract ‘was effected involuntarily and thus not as an exercise of free
        choice or will and . . . that this condition of mind was caused by
        some improper and coercive conduct of the opposite side.’” Id.
        (quoting City of Miami v. Kory, 394 So. 2d 494, 497 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
        App. 1981)). Therefore, when a party seeks to rescind a settlement
        agreement, that party has the burden to show that the other party
        “engaged in wrongful acts or threats that caused a situation in
        which it had no alternative.” See id. Similarly, for a claim of fraud-
        ulent inducement, the party has the burden to show: “(1) a false
        statement concerning a material fact; (2) the representor's
        knowledge that the representation is false; (3) an intention that the
        representation induced another to act on it; and (4) consequent in-
        jury by the party acting in reliance on the representation.” Butler v.
        Yusem, 44 So. 3d 102, 105 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Johnson v. Davis, 480
        So. 2d 625, 627 (Fla. 1985)).
                In his operative complaint, Bluhm alleged that Defendants
        fraudulently induced him into entering the Settlement Agreement
        and that he was under duress when he entered into that agreement.
        Thus, if the case had proceeded to trial, Bluhm would have had the
        burden of proving these claims. See Cableview, 901 F.3d at 1301;
        Butler, 44 So. 3d at 105.
USCA11 Case: 22-11752     Document: 54-1     Date Filed: 10/17/2023    Page: 15 of 24

        22-11752              Opinion of the Court                       15

               But here, Defendants moved for summary judgment on
        Bluhm’s claims. As the parties moving for summary judgment, De-
        fendants therefore bore the initial burden of demonstrating that
        there was no genuine dispute of material fact and they were enti-
        tled to judgment as a matter of law. See Edmondson, 43 F.4th at
        1160. But at the summary judgment stage, “the burden on the
        moving party may be discharged by ‘showing’—that is, pointing
        out to the district court—that there is an absence of evidence to
        support the nonmoving party's case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
        U.S. 317, 325 (1986). In their motion for summary judgment, De-
        fendants did that by pointing to the language of the Settlement
        Agreement and arguing that it was not fraudulently induced. In-
        deed, Defendants argued that the Settlement Agreement was a
        valid contract because there was a meeting of the minds. And, in
        support of their argument, Defendants pointed to record evidence
        showing that Bluhm understood what he was agreeing to. At this
        point, the burden then shifted to Bluhm to show that there were
        genuine and disputed issues of material fact as to his claims of
        fraudulent inducement and duress. See James River, 22 F.4th at
        1251.
                In other words—and contrary to Bluhm’s argument—the
        district court did not presume the validity of the Settlement Agree-
        ment and improperly shift the initial burden of proof to Bluhm.
        Defendants were not required to do more than show the absence
        of a genuine and material factual dispute regarding Bluhm’s fraud-
        ulent inducement and duress claims before the burden shifted to
        Bluhm to show otherwise. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325; James River,
USCA11 Case: 22-11752      Document: 54-1       Date Filed: 10/17/2023      Page: 16 of 24

        16                      Opinion of the Court                   22-11752

        22 F.4th at 1251. Accordingly, we reject Bluhm’s argument that
        the district court presumed the validity of the Settlement Agree-
        ment and improperly shifted the initial burden of proof to Bluhm.
                       B. The Settlement Agreement Is Valid.
             1. The District Court Correctly Concluded That the Parties’ Minds
                Met as to the Settlement Agreement’s Commercial-Use Prohibi-
                                             tion.
               We next address Bluhm’s argument that the Settlement
        Agreement’s release was not enforceable because the parties never
        agreed on the meaning of a separate provision that barred Bluhm
        from using Extra Holidays for commercial purposes. In support of
        this argument, Bluhm points to his own deposition testimony that
        he believed the word “commercial” referred only to advertising
        and similar activity (rather than simply any activity relating to com-
        merce) and to his email to Mosquera asking for clarification of
        “vague areas” in the Settlement Agreement. Bluhm also contends
        that the commercial-use prohibition was an essential term of the
        contract. Bluhm thus maintains that the entire Settlement Agree-
        ment, including the release, is invalid because the parties’ minds
        never met with respect to that essential term.
                The existence of a contract is a question of law. L & H Con-
        str. Co. v. Circle Redmont, Inc., 55 So. 3d 630, 634 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
        2011). For a contract to exist, there must be “mutual assent, or
        ‘meeting of the minds,’ on all the essential terms of the[] agree-
        ment.” Sam Rodgers Props., Inc. v. Chmura, 61 So. 3d 432, 437 (Fla.
        Dist. Ct. App. 2011). Under Florida law, we must use “an objective
USCA11 Case: 22-11752       Document: 54-1       Date Filed: 10/17/2023   Page: 17 of 24

        22-11752                 Opinion of the Court                       17

        test . . . to determine whether a contract is enforceable.” Robbie v.
        City of Miami, 469 So. 2d 1384, 1385 (Fla. 1985). That test requires
        an evaluation “of two sets of external signs—not on the parties hav-
        ing meant the same thing but on their having said the same thing.”
        Id. (quoting Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co. v. Data Lease Fin.
        Corp., 302 So. 2d 404, 407 (Fla. 1974)). Parties to a contract need
        not “nail[] down each and every detail” to form an enforceable con-
        tract, but the essential terms must be sufficiently definite. ABC Liq-
        uors, Inc. v. Centimark Corp., 967 So. 2d 1053, 1057 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
        App. 2007).
               The Settlement Agreement’s commercial-use prohibition
        barred Bluhm from “engag[ing] in any commercial conduct of any
        type as part of [his] use of the Retained Interests, which would in-
        clude the use of Extra Holidays, or any other Wyndham related
        entity, for the rental of [his] Retained Interests.” Bluhm argues that
        the undefined phrase “commercial conduct” is too vague to satisfy
        the meeting-of-the-minds standard under Florida law, and he ad-
        vances multiple hypotheticals to show how disputes over the
        meaning of the phrase might arise in the future.
               Although we agree that the phrase “commercial conduct” is
        broad and potentially susceptible to multiple interpretations, mere
        ambiguity in an essential term of a contract does not preclude the
        parties from reaching a meeting of the minds. 3 See Blackhawk, 302
        So. 2d at 408. The Florida Supreme Court has explained that “by

        3 We assume without deciding that the commercial-use prohibition was an

        essential term of the Settlement Agreement.
USCA11 Case: 22-11752      Document: 54-1       Date Filed: 10/17/2023      Page: 18 of 24

        18                      Opinion of the Court                   22-11752

        signing the writing the parties bind themselves to such interpreta-
        tion as the court may place upon the words and symbols employed
        by them.” Id. Or, in other words, “[a] subsequent difference as to
        the construction of the contract does not affect the validity of the
        contract or indicate the minds of the parties did not meet with re-
        spect thereto.” Id.
                With these principles in mind, we turn to address Bluhm’s
        meeting-of-the-minds argument. The undisputed record evidence
        shows that in agreeing to be bound the commercial-use prohibi-
        tion, Bluhm and Defendants mutually agreed to something. At oral
        argument, Bluhm’s counsel conceded that the commercial-use pro-
        hibition at least forbade Bluhm from renting through Extra Holi-
        days at the level that he had been before the Settlement Agree-
        ment. Bluhm also admitted as much in his deposition. Addition-
        ally, while Bluhm questioned Mosquera about the meaning of the
        commercial-use prohibition before he signed the Settlement
        Agreement, he subsequently signed the Settlement Agreement.
        Bluhm’s decision to do so shows that he understood—even after
        deliberation—that he was binding himself to avoid commercial use
        of his Extra Holidays rights. See Don L. Tullis & Assocs., Inc. v. Benge,
        473 So. 2d 1384, 1386 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985) (affirming a jury’s
        finding that a meeting of the minds occurred even when an alleg-
        edly essential term was left undefined because the “parties know-
        ingly, thoughtfully and deliberately entered th[e] agreement”).
             All told, the commercial-use prohibition “created a frame-
        work for resolving the parties’ differences, rather than nailing
USCA11 Case: 22-11752      Document: 54-1       Date Filed: 10/17/2023      Page: 19 of 24

        22-11752                Opinion of the Court                          19

        down each and every detail.” ABC Liquors, 967 So. 2d at 1057. Un-
        der Florida law, this is enough to establish a meeting of the minds.
        See id. To the extent that Bluhm and Defendants disagree about
        the meaning of the commercial-use prohibition, they remain free
        to litigate that issue in the future. All that is at issue in this appeal
        is whether that prohibition is so ill-defined that it renders the entire
        Settlement Agreement—including the release—invalid. We con-
        clude that it does not. In their written agreement, the parties here
        “said the same thing”—i.e., they entered into a written agreement
        with the same terms—so it does not matter for present purposes
        whether disputes over alleged ambiguities could arise later. Gen-
        dzier v. Bielecki, 97 So. 2d 604, 608 (Fla. 1957) (quoting Oliver Wen-
        dell Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457, 464 (1897)).
        We thus conclude that the district court properly entered summary
        judgment for Defendants as to whether a meeting of the minds oc-
        curred.
             2. The District Court Correctly Rejected Bluhm’s Fraudulent-In-
                                    ducement Argument.
               We now address Bluhm’s argument that a genuine dispute
        of material fact precluded the district court’s entry of summary
        judgment as to his fraudulent-inducement argument. Bluhm con-
        tends that Wyndham obstructed his access to the online reserva-
        tion system and that, after Wyndham did so, Mosquera materially
        misrepresented the reasons for the obstructed access. According to
        Bluhm, Mosquera led him to believe that Wyndham’s “IT” is-
        sues—rather than its objections to Bluhm’s misuse of Extra Holi-
        days—was responsible for Bluhm’s access difficulties. He claims
USCA11 Case: 22-11752     Document: 54-1      Date Filed: 10/17/2023     Page: 20 of 24

        20                     Opinion of the Court                 22-11752

        that Mosquera told him that he needed to sign the Settlement
        Agreement for his account to be unlocked as an IT matter, when,
        in reality, Wyndham could have easily enabled Bluhm to access his
        account as he had before. Bluhm therefore argues that the Settle-
        ment Agreement is invalid because his decision to sign it was pred-
        icated on Mosquera’s allegedly false representation that Wyndham
        could not enable Bluhm to make reservations online until he
        signed the Settlement Agreement.
               Under Florida law, a party alleging fraudulent inducement
        must establish the following four elements: (1) a false statement
        about a material fact; (2) the representor's knowledge that the rep-
        resentation is false; (3) an intention that the representation induced
        another to act on it; and (4) resulting injury by the party acting in
        reliance on the representation. Dziegielewski v. Scalero, 352 So. 3d
        931, 934 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022). Bluhm focuses on two subparts
        of the first element: falsity and materiality. We will assume with-
        out deciding that Mosquera’s statements to Bluhm, viewed in the
        light most favorable to Bluhm, were false.
                The district court correctly concluded that Mosquera’s state-
        ments were immaterial. There is no dispute that even after Bluhm
        was locked out of his online Wyndham account, he was able to—
        and in fact did—make reservations on the phone through Wynd-
        ham representatives. While making reservations that way might
        have been less efficient for Bluhm, he offers no explanation for why
        affording him access to over-the-phone reservation services was in-
        sufficient to meet any putative access obligations Wyndham had.
USCA11 Case: 22-11752      Document: 54-1      Date Filed: 10/17/2023      Page: 21 of 24

        22-11752                Opinion of the Court                         21

                Bluhm also fails to show that Wyndham had a fiduciary or
        other obligation to grant him unfettered online access to the reser-
        vation system in the circumstances presented by the record. On
        appeal, Bluhm does not specify what law should apply to the ques-
        tion of whether WVR, as the manager of the trust, owed him a
        particular fiduciary duty. However, as Bluhm asserted below that
        Arkansas law governs the matter, and the Trust Agreement con-
        tains a choice-of-law clause in favor of Arkansas law, we will apply
        Arkansas law to determine whether Wyndham had a fiduciary ob-
        ligation to afford Bluhm online access to Club Wyndham Plus. See
        Fla. First Fin. Servs., LLC v. Randolph, 350 So. 3d 820, 823 (Fla. Dist.
        Ct. App. 2022) (holding that under Florida’s choice-of-law rules, a
        choice-of-law clause is presumptively enforceable); see also Kinark
        Corp. v. Home Ins. Co., 68 F.3d 467, 1995 WL 581621, at *4 n.7 (5th
        Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (explaining that courts need not decide a
        choice-of-law issue when the judgment must be affirmed even un-
        der the appellant’s chosen law).
               To start with, there is no doubt that WVR, as the trustee’s
        delegate, owed fiduciary duties of some sort to Bluhm. Bluhm is a
        “Member” as defined by the Trust Agreement, and members are
        beneficiaries of the trust. But—importantly—Wyndham, FVOA,
        and other affiliates are also Club Wyndham Plus beneficiaries. And
        the express purpose of the trust is “to secure for the Beneficiaries
        their respective rights and interests as set forth in this Trust Agree-
        ment and in the Purchase Agreements and/or Assignment Agreements
        executed by the Members.” (Emphasis added).
USCA11 Case: 22-11752     Document: 54-1      Date Filed: 10/17/2023    Page: 22 of 24

        22                     Opinion of the Court                22-11752

               The record evidence shows that Bluhm violated the Pur-
        chase Agreements—and, by extension, the purpose of the trust.
        There is no genuine dispute that Bluhm had for years used Extra
        Holidays to operate a for-profit business enterprise. Indeed, Bluhm
        admitted to such misuse at his deposition. And he also sought lost
        profits as damages in this lawsuit. But the Purchase Agreements
        Bluhm entered into forbade for-profit use, and the Extra Holidays
        Listing Agreements incorporated that prohibition.
                The undisputed record evidence thus showed that the Club
        Wyndham Plus trustee (or its delegate) was not required to make
        it easier for Bluhm to continue to violate the express purpose of the
        trust by affording him access to the online reservation system that
        he had repeatedly misused. A trustee’s duty is “to protect the in-
        terests of the beneficiaries, to manage the trust property, and to
        carry out the terms and purposes of the trust.” Hamilton v. Bank of
        the Ozarks, 647 S.W.3d 113, 118 (Ark. Ct. App. 2022) (quoting In re
        Hamilton Living Tr., 571 S.W.3d 53, 59 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019)). The
        purpose of the Club Wyndham Plus trust was to protect and en-
        force the Purchase Agreements that Bluhm was violating by using
        the online reservation system. And Bluhm points to no provision
        of the Trust Agreement—or any other agreement in the record—
        that expressly guaranteed him online access to the reservation sys-
        tem.
              Thus, no agreement, and no principle of Arkansas law, re-
        quired WVR to facilitate Bluhm’s violation of the trust that WVR
        was appointed to manage. If anything, the law required the
USCA11 Case: 22-11752     Document: 54-1     Date Filed: 10/17/2023    Page: 23 of 24

        22-11752              Opinion of the Court                       23

        opposite. Arkansas law imposes an obligation of impartiality on
        trustees and their delegates. See, e.g., Hardy v. Hardy, 230 S.W. 2d
        11, 16 (Ark. 1950) (“Where there are two or more beneficiaries of a
        trust, the trustee is under a duty to deal impartially with them.”
        (quoting Restatement of the Law of Trusts § 183)); First Nat’l Bank
        of Dewitt v. Yancey, 826 S.W.2d 287, 289 (Ark. Ct. App. 1991) (rec-
        ognizing a trustee’s “fiduciary duty to deal impartially with multi-
        ple beneficiaries”). Impartially carrying out the purpose of a trust
        means effectuating that purpose without favoring one beneficiary
        over another. But if Bluhm is correct that WVR was required to
        grant him access to the online reservation system to run his for-
        profit business, WVR would necessarily be subordinating the
        trust’s purpose to the improper activity of a single beneficiary—
        Bluhm.
                In short, the undisputed record evidence shows that Bluhm
        was using the online reservation system to violate the Purchase
        Agreements and the purpose of the Club Wyndham Plus trust.
        Wyndham had no fiduciary obligation to facilitate these violations
        by allowing Bluhm continued online access to the system. Addi-
        tionally, no provision of the Trust Agreement or any other docu-
        ment afforded members an unqualified right to online access.
        Thus, since Bluhm had no right to make reservations online any-
        way, Mosquera’s statements about the reasons for Bluhm’s re-
        stricted access were not material. We thus conclude that the dis-
        trict court did not err in finding that Wyndham’s ability to “physi-
        cally permit [Bluhm] access” to the online reservation system “is
        immaterial if Defendants had no obligation or intention of doing
USCA11 Case: 22-11752      Document: 54-1      Date Filed: 10/17/2023     Page: 24 of 24

        24                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11752

        so.” We thus affirm the district court’s entry of summary judgment
        to Defendants on this issue.
             3. The District Court Correctly Rejected Bluhm’s Duress Argument.
               Last, Bluhm contends that the district court erred when it
        rejected Bluhm’s duress argument because Wyndham exerted un-
        due “financial pressure” on him to enter the Settlement Agree-
        ment. We conclude that this argument lacks merit.
                Under Florida law, duress requires “improper external pres-
        sure or influence that practically destroys the free agency of a party
        and causes him to do an act or make a contract not of his own vo-
        lition.” Cableview, 901 F.3d at 1304 (quoting Cooper v. Cooper, 69 So.
        2d 881, 883 (Fla. 1954)). But “‘the pressure of financial circum-
        stances’ standing alone is insufficient to establish duress.” Id. at
        1304 n.7 (quoting Spillers v. Five Points Guar. Bank, 335 So. 2d 851,
        853 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)). Therefore, even assuming that De-
        fendants were exerting “financial pressure” on Bluhm to enter the
        Settlement Agreement, that alone is not sufficient to establish he
        was under duress when he signed that agreement. We thus con-
        clude that the district court did not err in granting summary judg-
        ment to Defendants on Bluhm’s duress argument.
                               IV.    CONCLUSION
            For the reasons stated, we affirm the district court’s grant of
        summary judgment to Defendants.
                AFFIRMED.