Hoffman v. Terry, 80-1484

Decision Date05 May 1981
Docket NumberNo. 80-1484,80-1484
Citation397 So.2d 1184
PartiesRobert Tod HOFFMAN, Appellant, v. Timothy Miller TERRY and Patricia R. Terry, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Shutts & Bowen and Richard M. Leslie, Miami, for appellant.

Cuadrado & Sosby, Miami, and Teresa Gail Sosby, for appellees.

Before HUBBART, C. J., and BARKDULL and FERGUSON, JJ.

FERGUSON, Judge.

The issue at trial was the correct interpretation to be given the terms of a contract. Appellant contends that the language of the instrument was clear and unambiguous and should have been interpreted by the court as a matter of law. Appellee contends that the provision in question had a meaning inconsistent with that meaning advanced by appellant. The court submitted the cause to the jury which returned a verdict in favor of appellees. The issues on appeal are whether the court correctly submitted the question to the jury to interpret the contract and correctly denied appellant's motion for a directed verdict.

We have examined the record, particularly the disputed contract provision, and find that the provision is, as determined by the trial court, reasonably susceptible to more than one construction. Because the provision is ambiguous, it was proper to submit the issue to the jury for resolution as a matter of fact. Friedman v. Virginia Metal Products Corp., 56 So.2d 515 (Fla.1952); Pan American Bancshares, Inc. v. Trask, 278 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). There was no error in denying appellant's motion for a directed verdict. See, e. g., Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So.2d 101 (Fla.1968); Bruce Construction Corp. v. The State Exchange Bank, 102 So.2d 288 (Fla.1958); Behar v. Root, 393 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Laird v. Potter, 367 So.2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Partylite Gifts, Inc. v. MacMillan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • September 11, 2012
    ...on ground that scope of release in settlement agreement was ambiguous and subject to resolution by trier of fact); Hoffman v. Terry, 397 So.2d 1184, 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (holding that when agreement is reasonably susceptible to more than one construction, issue is properly submitted to j......
  • Land O'Sun Realty Ltd. v. REWJB Gas Investments
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 30, 1996
    ...529 So.2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); DeLondono, 511 So.2d at 605; Neumann v. Brigman, 475 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Hoffman v. Terry, 397 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Florida Shade Tobacco Growers, Inc. v. Jno. H. Swisher & Son, Inc., 369 So.2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Since its accept......
  • Langner v. Charles A. Binger, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 17, 1987
    ...570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); John Alden Life Ins. Co. v. Home State Fin. Servs. Inc., 448 So.2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see Hoffman v. Terry, 397 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We agree with Langner that the contract is not unequivocally clear and susceptible to but one interpretation, namely tha......
  • Maccaferri Gabions, Inc. v. Dynateria Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • August 20, 1996
    ...reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation, it is ambiguous and its meaning is a question for the jury. Hoffman v. Terry, 397 So.2d 1184 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); Thunderbird Ltd. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 908 F.2d 787, 790 (11th Cir.1990); Fabrica Italiana Lavorazione Mate......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT