Boettler v. Rothmire
| Decision Date | 11 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 41451,41451 |
| Citation | 442 P.2d 511 |
| Parties | E. R. BOETTLER, Plaintiff in Error, v. Roy ROTHMIRE and Grace Rothmire, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A written contract, which, either through mutual mistake or through mistake on the part of one party and fraud or inequitable conduct on the part of the other, fails to express the real agreement and intent of the parties, will, upon proper application and showing, be reformed by a court of equity to speak the truth.
2. When a party litigant procures all of his own testimony to be stricken, the rulings of the trial court as to the admissibility of such party's testimony, both as to that allowed, and as to that denied, will not be considered by this Court as a basis for reversal of the trial court's judgment upon complaint of such party.
Appeal from the District Court of Kingfisher County; F. B. H. Spellman, Judge.
Appeal by E. R. Boettler, defendant below, from an adverse judgment reforming a written lease, cancelling such lease, and awarding to plaintiffs, Roy Rothmire and Grace Rothmire, judgment for past due rentals. Affirmed.
Raymond D. North, Enid, for plaintiff in error.
Shutler, Shutler, Baker & Simpson, Kingfisher, for defendants in error.
This is an appeal by defendant E. R. Boettler from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs Roy Rothmire and Grace Rothmire which first reformed, then cancelled, an agricultural lease. The judgment terminated the defendant's rights under the lease and also awarded to the plaintiffs the sum of $483.00 for past due rental.
Reference in this opinion to plaintiff in the singular will designate the plaintiff Roy Rothmire.
The lease in question was dated February 25, 1961. It was between plaintiff as lessor and defendant as lessee. Before reformation, the premises covered by the lease was the NE/4 of Section 1, Township 18 N., Range 9 W. of the IM., Kingfisher 18 N., Range 9 W. of the I.M., Kingfisher lease to include only the N. 100 acres of the NE/4.
The petition alleges that plaintiff and defendant entered into a 'verbal' agreement whereby plaintiff leased to defendant the NE/4, less the approximately 60 acres along the South side of it. Plaintiffs assert that the consideration for the 'oral' lease was $3.50 per acre per year for the 100 acres for a term of five years and five months from March 1, 1961, to August 1, 1966. Plaintiffs allege that defendant requested a written lease from plaintiff on or about February 25, 1961, and that plaintiff executed the requested written lease without reading it, due to the press of other involvements and in reliance upon defendant's representation that the lease conformed to the earlier oral lease. Plaintiffs allege defendant's subsequent possession of the N. 100 acres, payment of the agreed rental through July 31, 1963, and non-payment of the rental thereafter.
Plaintiffs allege that it was during the first quarter of 1963, when defendant referred plaintiff to the terms of the written lease, and this was the first they knew that the description in the lease included the whole quarter section and that defendant claimed the right to possession of all of it.
Plaintiffs also allege that the S. 60 acres of the 160 acres was under soil conservation contract with the government, i.e., in the soil bank and that the defendant was advised of this government contract prior to the lease agreement between them.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendant falsely and fraudulently represented the written lease to be in conformity with the oral lease, and that he made such representation to induce plaintiff to sign it. Plaintiffs allege their long and satisfactory relationship with defendant and an absence of any reason to doubt his integrity as justification for reliance by plaintiff upon such representations of the defendant.
Plaintiffs sought reformation of the lease to conform to the alleged oral lease agreement, cancellation of the lease for nonpayment of the rental, and money judgment from the defendant for use of the 100 acres from July 31, on a quantum meruit basis of not less than 30cents per acre per month.
By answer defendant admitted plaintiffs' ownership of the premises. He denied making a verbal lease or the alleged representations which plaintiffs assert induced them to execute the lease. He denied plaintiffs' allegations regarding his knowledge that the 60 acre tract was in the soil bank. Defendant alleged that he discovered the 60 acres was in the soil bank by his own investigation after execution of the lease, and that after his discovery of that fact in a discussion about it with plaintiff, plaintiff told him that his contract on that property was soon to expire and that an adjustment in rent would be made.
Defendant entered a general denial, and by cross-petition sought judgment against plaintiff for $2,500.00. In his cross-petition against plaintiff, defendant alleged purchase of 24 head of Angus cattle from plaintiff which he represented to be registered cattle. The transaction for purchase of the cattle was alleged to have been negotiated in connection with defendant's getting the lease. Defendant alleged plaintiff's failure to deliver registration certificates as agreed resulted in a loss to him of $2,500.00 by reason of his being required to sell the cattle as unregistered cattle. As an alternative to defendant's prayer for denial of plaintiffs' prayer for reformation of the lease, defendant sought forgiveness of the rental due, $316.82, and for judgment for expenditures in the amount of $783.12 which he incurred in improving the leasehold in reliance upon his having a lease for the period stated.
Plaintiff testified to facts substantially as alleged in the petition. Mr. Major, head clerk of the federal soil conservation agency, was called, and he produced plaintiff's soil bank contracts, including the 60 acres in dispute. The contracts of plaintiff as to all the property which he had contracted for inclusion in the soil bank, were admitted without objection. Mr. Major, without objection, was permitted to testify that the original contract as to the disputed 60 acres was entered into in 1958, for a ten year period, that in June, 1961, all of plaintiff's contracts were consolidated into a single contract and that the contract regarding the 60 acres was included in such single contract and that the terms of that contract were not changed by consolidation.
The only evidence as to rental on the premises, in addition to that fixed by the lease, and that paid through July 31, 1963, is plaintiff's testimony that defendant owed him $483.00 unpaid rent, and that when he had previously rented the whole 160 acres, it had been for $500.00 per year.
Defendant has presented three allegations of error. They are:
1. A lease cannot be reformed to comply with an oral agreement which is in violation of the statute of frauds;
2. When recovery is allowed on 'quantum meruit', there must be proof of the reasonableness of the amount claimed, based on the value of the benefit received; and
3. All claims involving the same transaction may be litigated in one suit.
From reading the record in this appeal in conjunction with defendant's brief, it is apparent that defendant's counsel has misunderstood the nature of plaintiffs' action. Plaintiffs sued to reform the written lease to conform to the actual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sabine Corp. v. ONG Western, Inc.
...seeking reformation was free of neglect. See Clearly Petroleum Corp. v. Harrison, 621 P.2d 528, 533 (Okla. 1980); Boettler v. Rothmire, 442 P.2d 511, 514-15 (Okla.1968); Dennis v. American-First Title & Trust Co., 405 P.2d 993, 997 (Okla.1965); National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford v. McC......
-
Stillwater Nat. Bank and Trust Co. v. Woolley
...a written instrument does not accurately reflect the parties' agreement, it may be reformed by a court of equity. Boettler v. Rothmire, 442 P.2d 511, 514-15 (Okla.1968). Parol evidence is admissible in reformation cases based on mutual mistake, as the oral testimony is not offered to alter ......
-
Cleary Petroleum Corp. v. Harrison
...v. McComber, 208 Okl. 352, 256 P.2d 158, 162 (1953); Welch v. Ruby, 200 Okl. 586, 198 P.2d 432, 436 (1948).18 Boettler v. Rothmire, Okl., 442 P.2d 511, 514-515 (1968); Dennis v. American-First Title and Trust Co., Okl., 405 P.2d 993, 997 (1965); Lincoln v. Wells, Okl., 350 P.2d 589, 591 (19......
-
Barnes v. McKinney
...at the request of the defendant, and he may not now gain further advantage by using them to upset an inadequate verdict. Boettler v. Rothmire, Okl., 442 P.2d 511 (1968). Frankly, after examining this record and observing the advantages defendant enjoyed in the trial court we find it hard to......