Nelson v. Daugherty

• Decision Date: 04 October 1960
• Docket Number: No. 38754,38754
• Parties: Ernest NELSON and Florence Nelson, His Wife; Mary E. Schafter and C. A. Schafer, Her Husband, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Ruby K. DAUGHERTY, as Administratrix of the Estate of Elcia E. Coulter, Deceased; Ruby K. Daugherty, Arthur L. Coulter, and Lula J. King, Heirs at Law of Elcia E. Coulter, Deceased, Defendants in Error.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 425

357 P.2d 425

1960 OK 205

Ernest NELSON and Florence Nelson, His Wife; Mary E.

Schafter and C. A. Schafer, Her Husband, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Ruby K. DAUGHERTY, as Administratrix of the Estate of Elcia

E. Coulter, Deceased; Ruby K. Daugherty, Arthur L. Coulter,

and Lula J. King, Heirs at Law of Elcia E. Coulter,

Deceased, Defendants in Error.

No. 38754.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. 4, 1960.

Rehearings Denied Dec. 13, 1960.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. In an action for the reformation of a deed or contract of sale, parol evidence is admissible to show the parties' intent and mutual mistake.

2. Evidence to sustain a judgment reforming a written contract must be clear, unequivocal, and decisive, but this does not mean that it must be uncontradicted; and the judgment of the trial court in such an action, where the evidence is conflicting, should be given weight, and should be affirmed on appeal, unless the appellate court is satisfied that the standard of proof required has not been met and the conclusion reached is wrong.

3. In a case of purely equitable cognizance the Supreme Court will review the testimony, but will not disturb the findings and judgment of the trial court, unless the same is clearly against the weight of the evidence.

4. Ordinarily, the statute of limitation does not begin to run against an equitable right to reform a deed, on account of mutual mistake as to its legal effect, before such effect is questioned or disputed.

5. Record examined, and held that the findings and judgment of the trial court were not clearly against the weight of the evidence, and this being a case of equitable cognizance, the judgment will be affirmed.

Appeal from the District Court of Harper County; C. R. Board, District Judge.

Action to reform deeds and quiet title. Judgment for plaintiffs. All defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Sparks & Boatman, Woodward, for plaintiffs in error, Mary E. Schafer and C. A. Schafer.

Miles & Miles, Beaver, for plaintiffs in error, Ernest Nelson and Florence H. Nelson.

Holcomb & Holcomb, Buffalo, for defendants in error.

JOHNSON, Justice.

Ruby K. Daugherty as administratrix of the estate of Elcia E. Coulter, deceased, and for herself as an heir of the Elcia E. Coulter estate, and other heirs named in the caption as defendants in error (plaintiffs below) commenced this action on August 7, 1956, in the District Court of Harper County, Oklahoma, to quiet title to '(A)n undivided 1/2 interest in the oil, gas and other minerals and mineral rights in and under the NW 1/4 of Section 22, Township 26 N, Range 25, W.I.M. in Harper County, Oklahoma,' and for the reformation and correction of (two certain) warranty deeds from Elcia E. Coulter and Arizona Coulter, husband and wife, to Mary E. Schafer, to conform to the true intention of the parties.

The trial resulted in a judgment and decree reforming the deeds and quieting plaintiffs' title.

The Nelson defendants and the Schafter defendants filed separate motions for a new trial, and from the orders overruling same they have duly appealed to this court.

The Nelson defendants challenge the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' petition and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's judgment.

The Schafer defendants question the admissibility of parol evidence to reform a written instrument, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment of the trial court and the statute of limitation as applied to the plaintiffs' cause of action.

Plaintiffs alleged in their petition that Elcia E. Coulter acquired fee simple title to the above described land, including all the oil, gas and minerals and mineral rights; that on June 9, 1933, he agreed to sell and convey this land to Mary E. Schafer, but reserving to himself a one-half (1/2) undivided interest in the oil, gas and other minerals in and under said land, and Mary E. Schafer in purchasing same agreed that Elcia E. Coulter should reserve to himself, his heirs and assigns said one-half (1/2) undivided interest in the oil, gas and other minerals in and under said land; that Elcia E. Coulter and Mary E. Schafer engaged C. A. Lake as a scrivener to prepare for them a deed to be executed by Elcia E. Coulter and his wife to Mary E. Schafer, and informed the said C. A. Lake that Elcia E. Coulter was reserving a one-half (1/2) undivided interest in the oil, gas and other minerals and instructed him to prepare said deed to include a proper clause or provision reserving unto said grantors one-half (1/2) of the oil, gas and other minerals; that by the mistake of C. A. Lake as scrivener and by mutual mistake of the said Elcia E. Coulter and his wife, grantors, and the said Mary E. Schafer, grantee, instead of containing a clause or provision reserving a one-half (1/2) interest in the oil, gas and other minerals in Elcia E. Coulter, contained an erroneous provision in the habendum clause of said deed, to-wit:

'Except an undivided one-sixteenth (1/16) interest in all the oil, gas and mineral rights to said land, said one-sixteenth interest is not conveyed to the grantee.'

That said deed was duly filed for record in Harper County, Oklahoma, on February 14, 1934; that after the execution of said deed on June 9, 1933, but before the recording of said deed on February 14, 1934, Elcia E. Coulter and his wife, at the request and for the benefit of the grantee Mary E. Schafer, obtained a loan on said land from the Land Bank Commissioner to take up an existing loan on the land. This mortgage was dated November 1, 1933, and was recordeed November 10, 1933; that in order to validate this mortgage, on March 22, 1934, Elcia E. Coulter and his wife executed an additional deed to Mary E. Schafer, and that this deed by the mutual mistake of the grantors and the grantee therein instead of containing a proper clause or provision reserving an undivided one-half interest in the oil, gas and other minerals in Elcia E. Coulter contained identically the same provision copied from the former deed dated June 9, 1933; that this deed was filed for record on March 22, 1934.

The plaintiffs alleged that neither of the aforesaid deeds expressed the intention of the parties thereto; that it was the intention and contract of the parties that Elcia E. Coulter reserved a one-half interest in the oil, gas and other minerals, and that the provision in each of said deeds wherein there was excepted and reserved a 1/16 in the oil, gas and other minerals was a mutual mistake of the grantors and the grantee, and that each of said deeds should be corrected and reformed to show that Elcia E. Coulter reserved a one-half interest in the oil, gas and other minerals in said land. Plaintiffs further alleged that on November 4, 1944, Mary E. Schafer and C. A. Schafer, her husband, sold and conveyed said land by a warranty deed to W. R. Salsman and therein excepted from the rights, title and interest in said land thereby conveyed 'one-half of all oil, gas and other mineral rights which have been previously conveyed,' and that thereby W. R. Salsman became the owner of the surface and one-half of the oil, gas and minerals. This deed was recorded in Harper County on December 28, 1944.

Plaintiffs further alleged that by the execution and delivery of this deed Mary E. Schafer acknowledged and ratified her previous contract with Elcia E. Coulter wherein the said Elcia E. Coulter had reserved a one-half (1/2) interest in the said oil, gas and minerals in and under said land. Plaintiffs further alleged that on October 16, 1946, W. R. Salsman and his wife sold the land to Ernest Nelson and Florence Nelson, his wife, and conveyed the same to them by a warranty deed and in said deed did except from the interest conveyed as follows:

'Except minerals reserved by Mary E. Schafer and C. A. Schafer in deed to W. R. Salsman, recorded at 27 deeds, page 416, records of Harper County, Oklahoma.'

and that thereby Ernest Nelson and Florence Nelson, his wife, became the owners as tenants in common of the surface and a one-half (1/2) undivided interest in the oil, gas and minerals in and under said land. This deed was filed for record on October 17, 1946.

It is further alleged that Elcia E. Coulter died October 31, 1955, intestate and left surviving Ruby K. Daugherty, Arthur L. Coulter and Lula J. King, plaintiffs herein, as his sole heirs, and that plaintiff Ruby K. Daugherty is administratrix of his estate; that the said Elcia E. Coulter died seized of the following described interest in real estate:

'A one-half (1/2) undivided interest in the oil, gas and other minerals and mineral rights in and under the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of Section Twenty-two (22) in Township Twenty-six (26) North, Range Twenty-five (25) West of the Indian Meridian in Harper County, Oklahoma'

and that said interest is owned by the plaintiffs Ruby K. Daugherty, Arthur E. Coulter and Lula J. King, subject to administration of the estate of Elcia E. Coulter, and that the same is now in possession of the administratrix for purposes of administration.

Plaintiffs petitioned that the defendants be required to come into court and set up their claims and prayed judgment quieting the title to said one-half (1/2) undivided interest in the oil, gas and other minerals under said land in the heirs of Elcia E. Coulter, deceased, subject to administration of his estate, and that the defendants be forever barred and enjoined from claiming or asserting any right, title or interest adverse to the plaintiffs, and plaintiffs prayed that the warranty deed from Elcia E. Coulter and Arizona Coulter to Mary E. Schafer duly recorded in Harper County, Oklahoma, be reformed and corrected to show that Elcia E. Coulter reserved a one-half (1/2) undivided interest in the oil, gas and other minerals and mineral rights in said land, and for other proper relief.

The defendants Ernest Nelson and Florence Nelson in their amended answer denied everything in the plaintiffs' petition not...