Case Name: OHL BUILDING, INC., etc., Appellant, v. MURPHY CONSTRUCTION FINISHERS, INC., etc., Appellee.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2018-07-05
Citations: 246 So. 3d 573
Docket Number: No. 3D17–1716
Parties: OHL BUILDING, INC., etc., Appellant,
v.
MURPHY CONSTRUCTION FINISHERS, INC., etc., Appellee.
Judges: Before SALTER, EMAS and LOGUE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 246
Pages: 573–574

Head Matter:
OHL BUILDING, INC., etc., Appellant,
v.
MURPHY CONSTRUCTION FINISHERS, INC., etc., Appellee.
No. 3D17-1716
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Opinion filed July 5, 2018
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.

Opinion:
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).