Case Name: TISHMAN SPEYER-EQUITABLE SOUTH FLORIDA VENTURE, a Florida General Partnership; Tishman Speyer Florida Properties, Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership; Tishman/Speyer Florida Associates, Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership; and Jerry I. Speyer, individually and as General Partner of Tishman/Speyer Florida Associates Ltd., Appellants, v. KNIGHT INVESTMENTS INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-12-23
Citations: 517 So. 2d 100
Docket Number: Nos. 4-86-2861, 4-86-2989
Parties: TISHMAN SPEYER-EQUITABLE SOUTH FLORIDA VENTURE, a Florida General Partnership; Tishman Speyer Florida Properties, Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership; Tishman/Speyer Florida Associates, Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership; and Jerry I. Speyer, individually and as General Partner of Tishman/Speyer Florida Associates Ltd., Appellants, v. KNIGHT INVESTMENTS INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.
Judges: ANSTEAD, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 517
Pages: 100–100

Head Matter:
TISHMAN SPEYER-EQUITABLE SOUTH FLORIDA VENTURE, a Florida General Partnership; Tishman Speyer Florida Properties, Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership; Tishman/Speyer Florida Associates, Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership; and Jerry I. Speyer, individually and as General Partner of Tishman/Speyer Florida Associates Ltd., Appellants, v. KNIGHT INVESTMENTS INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.
Nos. 4-86-2861, 4-86-2989.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Dec. 23, 1987.
Larry Klein of Klein & Beranek, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Shea & Gould, Miami, for appellants.
Edna L. Caruso and Russell S. Bohn of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., and Montgomery Searcy & Denney, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee-Knight Investments Inc.
Richard H. Willits of Easley, Massa & Willits, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appel-lee-Florida Nat. Bank.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the summary final judgment entered by the trial court because we find, contrary to the conclusion of the trial court, that the contract provisions in dispute are sufficiently ambiguous to permit the introduction of parol evidence.
ANSTEAD, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.