IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 13-50747

____________

HUNT BUILDING COMPANY, LIMITED, A Texas Limited Partnership; M.

L. HUNT; W. L. HUNT; NORTH HILLS HOUSING LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP,

Plaintiffs - Appellants Cross-Appellees,

v.

JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (USA), A Michigan

Corporation; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A.;

JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK,

 Defendants - Appellees Cross-Appellants.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CV-295

____________________

Before JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges, and GODBEY*, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:**

This appeal lies from a final judgment after a bench trial in a breach of

contract dispute. Because the district court correctly held the contract at issue

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 3, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

*District Judge of the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

**Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should

not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 13-50747 Document: 00512824280 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2014
No. 13-50747

was ambiguous, and correctly declined to apply the doctrine of contra

proferentem (i.e., construe ambiguous agreement against the drafter), we affirm.

The facts are well-known to the parties and set out fully in the opinions

below. The Court will therefore not repeat them at length here. Suffice to say

this is essentially a contract dispute between the developer of military housing

(appellants) and a lender (appellees) regarding the construction of a guaranty

and related deed of trust. The parties filed cross-motions for summary

judgment, requesting the district court to construe the agreements as a matter

of law. The district court denied the motions, holding that the agreements were

ambiguous. Following a bench trial, the district court found the agreements

should be construed for the lender. Appellants now argue again that this Court

should construe the agreements in their favor as a matter of law or, in the

alternative, that the agreements should be construed in their favor based on the

doctrine of contra proferentem. We affirm for essentially the reasons given by

the district court in its careful and thorough rulings below. See Memorandum

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion and Denying Defendants’ Cross-Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment (Dec. 19, 2012) ROA.5137-78 (holding contracts

ambiguous); Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (July 3, 2013) ROA.5627,

5670-72 (discussing contra proferentem under New York law).

Cross-appellants ask us to “reverse” a comment apparently made by the

district court in an unrecorded telephone conversation with counsel. We have

no jurisdiction to review something other than a ruling by the district court and

we decline to issue an advisory opinion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291-92; Cutler v.

Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 531 F. App’x 523, 524 (5th Cir. 2013) (unpub.)

(“This court does not have jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions regarding

2

 Case: 13-50747 Document: 00512824280 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2014
No. 13-50747

decisions of the district court that have not been made at a trial that has not

been held.”). We therefore dismiss the cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We

also remand for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to consider

cross-appellants’ request for attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in the course

of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 13-50747 Document: 00512824280 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/03/2014