Ballard v. Granby

• Decision Date: 06 November 1980
• Docket Number: No. 80-105,80-105
• Citation: 90 Ill.App.3d 13,45 Ill.Dec. 485,412 N.E.2d 1067
• Parties: , 45 Ill.Dec. 485 J. Edwin BALLARD and Mary Ballard, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gary GRANBY and Judith A. Granby, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1067

412 N.E.2d 1067

90 Ill.App.3d 13, 45 Ill.Dec. 485

J. Edwin BALLARD and Mary Ballard, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.Gary GRANBY and Judith A. Granby, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 80-105.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Nov. 6, 1980.

J. D. Flood, Hynds & Rooks, Morris, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Guy C. Fraker, Costigan & Wollrab, Bloomington, for defendants-appellees.

ALLOY, Presiding Justice:

J. Edwin Ballard and Mary Ballard appeal from the dismissal of their first amended complaint by the circuit court, on motion of the defendantsGary Granby and Judith Granby.The Ballards' complaint sought reformation of a 1965 quitclaim deed from them to the Granbys.The complaint for reformation was dismissed with prejudice.The Ballards appeal and raise the issue of whether their complaint stated a cause of action for reformation.Also raised as issues are the other bases for the defense's dismissal motion, being the parol evidence rule, adverse possession, and laches.

The factual allegations of the complaint are to be taken as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss.The facts as set forth in Count I of the complaint allege that in 1965 the Ballards conveyed to the Granbys, by quitclaim deed, a parcel of their property.The consideration for the conveyance was alleged to be an agreement between the parties that the Granbys would refrain from constructing a planned dormitory for laborers on property adjacent to the Ballards' home.The conveyance was made, ostensibly, so that the dormitory could be built on the conveyed property, away from the Ballards' home.According to the complaint, the property was conveyed by the Ballards to the Granbys with the "mutual understanding and agreement between (them) that the property was limited in use to the construction of the said dormitory and for no other purpose."Further allegations assert that the parties believed and understood that the deed conformed to that understanding with respect to the limited use of the property.The deed, as executed and delivered, contains no such limitation in use.The further allegations of the complaint state that the Granbys, in contravention of the agreement and understanding, are now attempting to build a dwelling house for their personal use on the property and are not intending to construct a dormitory.The Ballards seek reformation of the deed to conform to the agreement and understanding of the parties at the time of the conveyance.Count II of the complaint, which is not before us on appeal, requested recission of the contract.

The defendant Granbys filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.In that motion, accompanied by affidavit, they argued that the evidence to support the factual allegation of mistake would be barred by the parol evidence rule and, therefore, the plaintiffs would not be able to prove the matters asserted.Their motion also claimed title by adverse possession as a ground for dismissing the complaint.In addition, the defendants also argued that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and that any suit was barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.

The rules with respect to the reformation of written instruments are well settled.As noted in Biren v. Kluver(2d Dist.1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 692, 696, 342 N.E.2d 325:

"A written instrument may be reformed to conform with the intention of the parties upon proof by clear and convincing evidence of a mutual mistake of fact.A mutual mistake of fact exists when the contract has been written in terms which violate the understanding of both parties.The instrument may also be reformed upon proof of a mistake by one party to the contract when the other party knows of the mistake and fails to inform the other party or conceals the truth from him."(Citations omitted.)

The First District, in Harden v. Desideri(1st Dist.1974), 20 Ill.App.3d 590, 596, 315 N.E.2d 235, also discussed the action for reformation:

"The basis for a reformation action is an understanding between the parties.What is sought to be reformed is not this understanding, but rather an instrument which inaccurately reflects it."

The allegations in the Ballards' complaint set forth a mutual understanding between the parties and assert that the deed does not conform to that understanding but is not limited as to use.Reformation of the instrument, in this case the deed, is sought to conform it to the alleged understanding of the parties.The complaint states a cause of action for reformation.In Darst v. Lang(1932), 367 Ill. 119, 10 N.E.2d 659, the plaintiffs had executed and delivered a warranty deed to the defendant, predicated upon an oral agreement of the parties by which the plaintiffs reserved a life estate in the property conveyed.However, the deed failed to include the reservation of the life estate.After a number of years, the plaintiffs brought suit to reform the deed so as to express the understanding of the parties at the time of the conveyance.The court found that the omission of the reservation of a life estate was in the nature of a mistake of law and of a mistake of fact, which was mutual.(367 Ill. 119, at 122, 10 N.E.2d 659.SeeHarden v. Desideri, 20 Ill.App.3d 590, at 597-598, 315 N.E.2d 235.)In Darst, the Supreme Court affirmed the reformation of the deed to conform to the understanding of the parties so that a reservation of a life estate was included.367 Ill. 119, at 125, 10 N.E.2d 659.

The Darst case is firm support for our conclusion that the Ballards have stated a cause of action for reformation in the instant case.Here, the plaintiffs have alleged the deed of conveyance omitted a limitation in the use of the property which was part of the actual intent and understanding of the parties.They allege that the deed thereby did not reflect the actual understanding of the parties.The defense seeks to distinguish the Darst case on the basis that, in that case, the evidence of the intention of the parties was clearly manifested by subsequent conduct.The life tenant continued to reside on the property.However, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence on the question of mistake or fraud is one to be decided at trial, not at the motion to dismiss stage.As noted, plaintiffs at trial...