### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

____________ 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. J OHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (USA), A Michig a n 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 f

rom a final j udgment after a bench trial in a breach of contract dispute. B ecause the district c o urt correctly held the contract at issue U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Nov em ber 3, 2014 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* D is trict Jud ge of

the N orthern D is trict of Texas , s itting by d es ignation.

* * Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has determ inedthat this op inion s hould not be p ublis hed andis not preced ent excep t und er the lim itedcircum s tances s et f orth in 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5. 4. Case: 13-50747 Document: 00512824280 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2014No. 13-50747

was ambiguous, and c o r r e c t ly declined to apply the doctrine of contra proferentem (i.e., construe a mbiguous agreement a gainst the drafter), w e affirm. The facts are well-known to t h e parties and set out fully in the o pinions below. The Court w ill therefore not r epeat them at length here. Suffice to say this is e ssentially a contract dispute between the developer o f military housing (appellant s ) a n d a lender (appellees) regarding the construction of a guaranty

an d r e l a t e d deed of trust. The parties filed c r oss-motions for summary judgment, requesting the district court to construe the agreements as a matter of law. The district c ourt denied the motions, holding that the agreements were ambiguous. F o l l o w i ng a bench trial, the district court found the agreements should be c onstrued for the l ender. Appellants now argue again that this Court should construe the agreements in their favor as a matter of law or , i n the alternative, that the agreements should be construed in their favor based on the doctrine of contra profere n t e m . We affirm for essentially the reasons given by the district court in its careful and thorough rulings below. See Memorandum Order D enying Plaintiff’s Motion and D enying Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgmen t ( D e c. 19, 2012) ROA.5137-78 (holding c ontracts 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 un r e c o r d e d t elephone conversation with counsel. We have

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

we decline to issue an adv i s o ry opinion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291-92; Cutler v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ. , 531 F

. App’x 523, 524 ( 5th Cir. 2013 ) ( u n p u b

. ) (“This court d oes not h ave jurisdiction t o issue advisory opinions regarding

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

decisions of the district court tha t h a v e n ot been made at a t rial 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