OHL BUILDING V. MURPHY CONSTRUCTION FINISHERS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 5, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D17-1716 Lower Tribunal No. 15-6245 ________________ OHL Building, Inc., etc., Appellant, vs. Murphy Construction Finishers, Inc., etc., Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge. Malka & Kravitz, P.A., and Ian T. Kravitz and Harry Malka (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant. Mansfield, Bronstein & Stone, LLP, and Robert J. Mansen and Gary N. Mansfield (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee. Before SALTER, EMAS and LOGUE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Underwater Eng’g Servs., Inc. v. Utility Bd. of City of Key West, 194 So. 3d 437, 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (holding: “In reviewing a judgment rendered after a bench trial, ‘the trial court’s findings of fact come to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous.’ Thus, they are reviewed for competent, substantial evidence.” (citing Emaminejad v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 156 So. 3d 534, 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Verneret v. Foreclosure Advisors, LLC, 45 So. 3d 889, 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010))). See also Friedman v. Virginia Metal Prods. Corp., 56 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fla. 1952) (holding: “A word or phrase in a contract is ‘ambiguous’ when it is of uncertain meaning and may be fairly understood in more ways than one” and, under such circumstances, “parol testimony may be received, not to vary or change the terms of the contract, but to explain, clarify or elucidate” the ambiguity). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
