Moore v. Mullen, 19827
| Decision Date | 24 June 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 19827,19827 |
| Citation | 855 P.2d 70,123 Idaho 985 |
| Parties | Margarete D. MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marvin Leroy MULLEN and Kathleen Mullen, Defendants-Respondents, v. Washington Federal Savings and Loan Association, Third-Party Defendants, and William I. MOORE and Patsy Ann Moore, husband and wife, Third-Party Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
Frank T. Elam, McCall, for defendants-respondents.
Margarete D. Moore (MDM) appeals from a district court judgment and decree that reformed a deed held by Respondents Marvin and Kathleen Mullen (Mullens) to include a 1/4 lot deeded to MDM by her son and daughter-in-law William I. and Patsy Ann Moore (Moores). MDM argues that the district court committed clear error when it decreed that there had been a mutual mistake by the Moores and United First Federal Savings and Loan Association (UFFS 1) when a note and deed of trust were executed to secure a home equity loan. For the following reasons we reverse and remand.
MDM acquired 3 1/2 lots on June 28, 1962, consisting of the North 1/2 of lot 6, and all of lots 7, 8, and 9, of Block 83 in New Meadows, Idaho. On May 18, 1974, MDM transferred to the Moores title to the North 1/2 of lot 8 and all of lot 9 ("Lot 1"). The Moores erected a prefabricated home on Lot 1 using the proceeds of a loan obtained from UFFS on September 5, 1974. On November 19, 1977, MDM transferred to the Moores title to an additional parcel of land described as the East 1/2 of the South 1/2 of lot 8 (the " 1/4 Lot"). The 1/4 Lot is the subject of this appeal.
On August 10, 1980, the Moores applied to UFFS for an additional loan based upon their home equity. On the application the Moores listed both Lot 1 and the 1/4 Lot as the legal description of their residence. UFFS had an appraisal completed which listed only Lot 1 as the description. UFFS refinanced the original loan and advanced the Moores additional funds on October 30, 1980. A title insurance policy was issued which described the property covered by the policy as Lot 1. The note and deed of trust taken by UFFS as security for the loan described the subject property as Lot 1.
In June 1982, the Moores filed a handwritten declaration of homestead which contained a description of the 1/4 Lot without any reference to Lot 1, the actual location of the house. In September 1984, the Moores obtained a business loan from Idaho First National Bank ("IFNB") secured by a second deed of trust which covered both Lot 1 and the 1/4 Lot. In 1985, the Moores filed a petition for bankruptcy which listed the 1/4 Lot as the real property securing the UFFS and IFNB loans. On September 25, 1985, the Moores moved out of the house and turned the property over to UFFS. UFFS foreclosed and obtained a trustee's deed to Lot 1 on April 30, 1986.
UFFS put the house and Lot 1 up for sale. In July 1986, the Mullens entered into an agreement to purchase the "Bill Moore property (Presently owned by United First Federal Savings & Loan--legal In April 1989, the Moores sold the 1/4 Lot to MDM for $500. In December 1989, MDM had a survey completed which revealed that deck steps and a shed constructed by the Mullens were located on the 1/4 Lot. In February 1990, MDM requested, in writing, that the Mullens remove their personal property from the 1/4 Lot and in May 1990, MDM erected a fence on the southern boundary of Lot 1. On June 1, 1990, MDM filed this action to quiet title to the 1/4 Lot.
[123 Idaho 987] description to be attached)." 2 An appraisal was completed that described the real property as Lot 1. In November 1986, the purchase was completed and the Mullens received a title policy that described the subject property as Lot 1. A note and deed of trust were used to secure a purchase money loan from UFFS which also described the real property as Lot 1
The Mullens responded to the complaint and filed counterclaims and third-party complaints. The court allowed the Mullens to amend their original counterclaim to allege grounds for reformation of the deed based upon mutual mistake. Motions for summary judgment were made which resulted in the court dismissing all damage claims against UFFS, but retaining it as a nominal party for the purpose of reforming the deed if necessary and dismissing all other third-party defendants except the Moores. The remaining claims were scheduled for trial; however, the parties stipulated that the matter would be submitted to the court for its decision based upon affidavits, exhibits, and briefs in lieu of trial. Following such submission, the court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law and decreed that the Mullens' request for reformation of their deed, based on mutual mistake, be granted and denied MDM's quiet title claim. However, the court denied the Mullens' claim of title on the theories of adverse possession and boundary by acquiescence, and also denied all the Mullens' damage claims against MDM and the Moores. A timely appeal was filed by MDM and the Moores, raising the issue whether the district court erred by reforming the deed to the 1/4 Lot based upon mutual mistake or by failing to quiet title in MDM.
We are called upon to review the district court's decision, as trier of fact, to reform Mullens' deed based upon a theory of mutual mistake. First we note our standard of review. Generally, we will rely on the trial court to weigh the evidence for mutual mistake because it is a factual question which will not be reversed unless the finding of mutual mistake is clearly erroneous. Cline v. Hoyle & Associates Ins., Inc., 108 Idaho 162, 164, 697 P.2d 1176, 1178 (1985).
MDM's first argument is that the deed given to UFFS is unambiguous as to which lot was being used as security and therefore parol evidence is not admissible. While this is generally true, when mutual mistake is alleged parol evidence is admissible to show that mutual mistakes were made. Collins v. Parkinson, 96 Idaho 294, 296, 527 P.2d 1252, 1255 (1974). A court can properly reform an instrument when the evidence shows that "the instrument does not reflect the intentions of the parties and that such failure is the product of a mutual mistake." Id. Therefore, the court did not err when it took parol evidence on whether there had been a mutual mistake that would support the reformation of the deed to the 1/4 Lot.
Next, MDM argues that the court committed error because she holds legal title to the 1/4 Lot and there was no evidence in the record produced at trial to support the court's conclusion that there had been a mutual mistake by the Moores and UFFS. Our Supreme Court has stated that:
The law presumes that the holder of title to property is the owner thereof. The effect of this presumption is that:
"[O]ne who would claim the ownership of property of which the legal title stands of record in another ... must establish such claim by evidence that is clear, satisfactory, and convincing."
Russ Ballard & F.A.I. v. Lava Hot Springs Resort, Inc., 97 Idaho 572, 579, 548 P.2d 72, 79 (1976) (citations omitted); Erb v. Kohnke, 121 Idaho 328, 331, 824 P.2d 903, 906 (Ct.App.1992); see also Collins, 96 Idaho at 296, 527 P.2d at 1255 (). It is undisputed that MDM holds a properly-recorded legal title to the 1/4 Lot; therefore, the burden was upon the Mullens to show a mutual mistake by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence. We recognize that the determination whether the burden of proof has been carried is ordinarily for the trial court; however, clear error exists where the record does not contain sufficient evidence to sustain the trial court's findings. Ballard, 97 Idaho at 579, 548 P.2d at 79.
The Mullens argue that they met this burden because the Moores' loan application and subsequent homestead and bankruptcy filings showed that there was a mistake. A claim of mistake must be "common to both parties in order to be a basis for reformation;" a unilateral mistake is not normally grounds for relief. Cline, 108 Idaho at 164, 697 P.2d at 1178. A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dennett v. Kuenzli
...contracting, share a misconception about a basic assumption or vital fact upon which they based their bargain. Moore v. Mullen, 123 Idaho 985, 988, 855 P.2d 70, 73 (Ct.App.1993). The mistake must be so substantial and fundamental as to defeat the object of the parties. Bailey, 105 Idaho at ......
-
Twin Forks Ranch, Inc. v. Brooks
...transaction, just as the deeds failed to reflect the explicit agreement to convey water taps with the land. See Moore v. Mullen, 123 Idaho 985, 988, 855 P.2d 70, 73 (Ct.App.1993) (mutual mistake occurs when both parties at the time of contracting have a misconception about a basic assumptio......
-
Belk v. Martin
...and the trial court's determination will not be reversed unless the finding of mistake is clearly erroneous. Moore v. Mullen, 123 Idaho 985, 987, 855 P.2d 70, 72 (Ct.App.1993) (citing Cline v. Hoyle & Assoc. Ins., Inc., 108 Idaho 162, 164, 697 P.2d 1176, 1178 (1985)). "[A] mistake is an uni......
-
Beard v. George, 26184.
...mutual mistake. Tusch Enterprises v. Coffin, 113 Idaho 37, 45 n. 5, 740 P.2d 1022, 1030 n. 5 (1987); see also Moore v. Mullen, 123 Idaho 985, 987, 855 P.2d 70, 72 (Ct.App.1993). In this case, the date on the assignment was a typographical mistake which neither party apparently noticed at th......