Laytham v. Mann

• Decision Date: 01 December 1936
• Citation: 188 A. 242
• Parties: LAYTHAM et ux. v. MANN et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

188 A. 242

LAYTHAM et ux.

v. MANN et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Dec. 1, 1936.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. It is not indispensable to decreeing a reformation that the evidence as to the mistake of the parties be undisputed.

2. Where the evidence as a whole clearly, convincingly, and without doubt demonstrates the alleged mistake, reformation will be decreed, notwithstanding defendant's testimony to the contrary.

Suit by John T. Laytham and wife against Saul M. Mann and others, wherein named defendant filed a counterclaim.

Decree in accordance with opinion.

Patlen & Amlicke, of Passaic, for complainants.

Saul M. Mann, of Paterson, pro se.

LEWIS, Vice Chancellor.

Complainants' bill seeks the foreclosure of a mortgage covering premises, title to which now is in the name of defendant Mollie Goldberg. For the purpose of ultimately holding him liable upon the bond for any resultant deficiency, complainants joined, as a party defendant, one Saul M. Mann, who thereupon filed his answer and counterclaim setting forth that he acquired title to the mortgaged premises from complainants, to whom he gave the bond and mortgage in question, not in his individual capacity, but as trustee for his said co-defendant; by reason of which he seeks a reformation of each of said instruments in manner and form indicative thereof.

The evidence discloses, without contradiction, that in the latter part of 1928, complainant John F. Laytham became the owner, by purchase at a foreclosure sale under a mortgage then held by him, of the premises in question. During the pendency of that foreclosure proceeding, he arranged with defendant Max Goldberg to convey to the latter and his wife, defendant Mollie Goldberg, the said premises, if and when he himself acquired same, taking back a bond and mortgage thereon in the sum of $8,500. The deed, bond, and mortgage necessary to effectuate this arrangement were, pursuant to his direction, prepared by said complainant's attorney, David H. Butz, a member of the bar of this state. Shortly prior to the date fixed for closing of title, defendant Max Goldberg apprised said complainant of his (Goldberg's) wife's then expressed unwillingness to accept the said deed or execute the said bond and mortgage because of her then conceived danger to the safety of her children presented by the propinquity of the premises in question to the unprotected banks of the Passaic river.

In order to obviate the thus presented necessity of postponing the date already fixed for passing of title, pending her reconsideration of her said objection, her husband and said complainant evolved an arrangement whereby her brother, defendant Mann, was to execute the bond and mortgage upon and take the deed to the said premises, temporarily and for her benefit and in whom the beneficial interest therein was to reside. Accordingly, and by the direction of said complainant, her name and that of her said husband were eradicated by complainants' said attorney from the already prepared instruments, and that of defendant Mann substituted in their place and stead. In accordance with their said arrangement, the said instruments, as thus altered, were thereupon executed by defendant Mann, shortly after which he reconveyed said premises to his said sister and codefendant, Mollie Goldberg.

Based upon these facts, defendant Mann contends that the instruments, as thus drafted and executed, fail to express or fulfill the manifest intent and agreement of the parties, viz., that said instruments were to be received and executed by him, not in his individual capacity, but as trustee for his said sister in whom the beneficial interest was intended to vest. That such was the understanding and intent is, however, vigorously denied by said complainant. But the conflict engendered by this denial alone will not of itself suffice to bar the reformation which defendant Mann here seeks (Goerke Co. v. Diskon (N.J.Ch.) 75 A. 780; Brunswick & Topsham Water Dist. v. Inhabitants of Topsham, 109 Me. 334, 84 A. 644; 53 C.J. 1038), if the evidence taken as a whole clearly, convincingly, and without doubt resolves the issue thus created in his favor. Klaas v. Boston...