Hoffman v. Terry, 397 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
Hoffman v. Terry, 397 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Partylite Gifts, Inc. v. MacMillan (flmd, 2012-09-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Partylite Gifts, Inc. v. MacMillan
M.D. Fla. · 2012 · confidence medium
Co. v. Boston Edison Co., 412 Mass. 545 , 591 N.E.2d 165, 172 (1992) (interpretation of ambiguous contract is question of fact for the jury); Weingart v. Allen & O’Hara, Inc., 654 F.2d 1096 , 1104 (5th Cir.1981) (applying Florida law) (reversing JNOV 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 jury for resolution as a matter of fact); Hurt v. Leather…
cited Cited "see" Gumberg v. Gumberg
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hoffman v. Terry, 397 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
cited Cited "see" Sentinel Enterprises, Inc. v. Stankiewicz
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hoffman v. Terry, 397 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Pan Am.
cited Cited "see" Langner v. Charles A. Binger, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
Inc., 448 So.2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see Hoffman v. Terry, 397 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
cited Cited "see" Specialty Restaurants Corp. v. City of Miami
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hoffman v. Terry, 397 So.2d 1184, 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Ellenwood v. S. United Life Ins.
cited Cited "see" Critchlow v. Williamson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hoffman v. Terry, 397 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." David A. Casey and Joan Quinn Casey v. Mistral Condominium Association, Inc.: Dolphin Developers, LLC Panhandle Getaways
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
Corp., 56 So. 2d 515, 516 (Fla. 1952) (citing 53 Am.Jur., Sec. 268 on Trials, p. 227, and Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed), Sec. 2556, p. 523) (“It is a cardinal rule, that the construction of all written instruments, is a question of law and belongs to the courts, provided: ‘the language used is clear, plain, certain, undisputed, unambiguous, unequivocal, and not subject to conflicting inferences’.”); see also Critchlow v. Williamson, 450 So. 2d 1153, 1156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (“However, if a provision is ambiguous, the matter must be submitted to the finder of fact.” (citing Hoffman v.…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Metropolitan Dade County v. RESOURCES RECOVERY
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Hoffman v. Terry, 397 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (where disputed contract provision reasonably susceptible to more than one construction, factual issue as to meaning of provision properly submitted to jury for resolution).
Robert Tod HOFFMAN, Appellant,
v.
Timothy Miller TERRY and Patricia R. Terry, Appellees.
80-1484.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 5, 1981.
397 So. 2d 1184
Hubbart, C.J., and Barkdull and Ferguson.
Cited by 29 opinions  |  Published

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.