Dickson v. Wolfe
| Decision Date | 10 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-2837,5-2837 |
| Citation | 235 Ark. 855,362 S.W.2d 427 |
| Parties | Ida DICKSON et al., Appellants, v. B. F. WOLFE et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Clifton Bond, Monticello, for appellants.
D. A. Clarke, McGehee, for appellees.
The appellants filed this suit, seeking to reform a deed they had executed to the appellees on August 10, 1959. After a lengthy hearing the Trial Court denied the prayed relief, and this appeal resulted.
In 1958 Mr. and Mrs. Wolfe purchased from Mr. and Mrs. Dickson for $1500.00 a portion of Lots 9 and 10 in Block 104 of the City of Monticello. Mr. Dickson died intestate on February 5, 1959; and on May 5, 1959 Mrs. Dickson, for $500.00, conveyed to the Wolfes an additional portion of said Lots 9 and 10. When it was discovered that there were errors in the descriptions in the previous deeds and also that Mrs. Dickson had only a life estate in the property she had conveyed, Mrs. Dickson, joined with the other heirs of Mr. Dickson, executed the August 10, 1959 deed to the Wolfes. On December 9, 1959 the Dicksons (grantors in the August, 1959 deed) filed this suit, claiming that the said deed conveyed more property than was intended; and that there was either a mutual mistake or that the Wolfes had acted fraudulently.
The testimony on the part of the plaintiffs was that the May 1959 deed, as well as the August 1959 deed, included 'a strip of land approximately 15 feet wide off of the north side of the property belonging to the plaintiffs, and inside and south of the boundary fence,' which was not intended to be conveyed. The plaintiffs claimed that it was agreed that the fence would be the boundary of the conveyed property, but that the deed conveyed a strip fifteen feet wide inside the fence. The testimony on behalf of the defendants was: that they bargained for a thirty-foot strip; that they had it surveyed and described; that the deed was properly prepared; that the description of the property was read to the plaintiffs before they signed the deed; and that there was no mistake.
After hearing all the evidence, the Chancellor delivered a written opinion, from which we copy:
'This action, as the usual reformation action, turns on the burden of proof. The rule is: the plaintiffs having executed and delivered the deed to the defendants--title having passed--'the burden of establishing grounds for reformation rests on the plaintiff' (Glasscock v. Mallory, 139 Ark. 83 ). A preponderance of the evidence alone is not sufficient to reform a written instrument (Hicks v. Rankin, 214 Ark. 77 ). 'It is well settled by our decisions that before the jurisdiction of equity may be invoked to reform a written instrument by parol evidence, the proof must be clear, unequivocal and decisive' (Smith v. Olin Industries, 224 Ark. 606 ). It is not necessary that the testimony be undisputed to reform a deed, 'It suffices if the testimony, in its entirety, clearly shows that a mutual mistake was made' (Meekins v. Meekins, 168 Ark. 654 ).
'In explaining the meaning of the rule of 'the proof must be clear, unequivocal and decisive,' the court said in Hicks, Special Adms. v. Rankins, 214 Ark. 77 : '*...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Birch-Brook, Inc. v. Ragland, BIRCH-BROO
...proof is upon the one who seeks reformation to establish his right to it by clear, convincing, and decisive evidence. In Dickson v. Wolfe, 235 Ark. 855, 362 S.W.2d 427, this court 'In explaining the meaning of the rule of 'the proof must be clear, unequivocal and decisive,' the court said i......
- Coulter v. Payne
-
Harbour v. Sheffield
...appellee's name. The law requires that to warrant reformation of the deed the evidence must be clear and convincing. Dickson v. Wolfe, 235 Ark. 855, 362 S.W.2d 427 (1962). We do not find clear and convincing evidence in the record that either the grantors or the grantee in the 1941 deed int......