Turner v. Pennington, CA
| Decision Date | 16 February 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Citation | 7 Ark.App. 205,646 S.W.2d 28 |
| Parties | McArthur TURNER and Mary N. Turner, Appellants, v. Ed PENNINGTON, et ux., Appellees. 82-275. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Young, Patton & Folsom by Nicholas H. Patton, Texarkana, for appellants.
Pilkinton & Pilkinton by James H. Pilkinton, Jr., Hope, for appellees.
Appellant seeks reversal of the chancellor's decision that appellee was entitled to have a certain deed reformed to include a mineral reservation which had been omitted. The trial judge also upheld appellee's alternative claims of entitlement to the mineral interests based on laches, estoppel and adverse possession. Appellant contends the chancellor's findings were contrary to the law. Because we find the evidence and the law support the chancellor's decision to reform the deed, we limit our discussion and opinion to that issue only.
The law is well settled that reformation of a written instrument is permitted in equity to show the true intent of the parties where there is a mutual mistake. Bicknell v. Barnes, 255 Ark. 697, 501 S.W.2d 761 (1973). The parties seeking reformation, however, must present evidence that clearly and convincingly warrants a finding that a mutual mistake occurred; however, the proof need not be undisputed in order to achieve reformation. Bicknell v. Barnes, supra. In the instant case, both parties agree that the chancellor's decision to reform the deed was premised on a finding of mutual mistake. The parties disagree, however, on whether the evidence supports that finding. In reviewing this factual issue on appeal, we do not reverse the chancellor's decision unless his ruling is clearly erroneous. Dicus v. Allen, 2 Ark.App. 204, 619 S.W.2d 306 (1981). Guided by these recognized principles of law, we proceed to review the evidence.
On August 27, 1970, appellee deeded two lots in Lewisville, Arkansas, to appellants. 1 Appellee testified that he intended to sell only the surface rights to the lots, and that in accordance with an oil and gas lease which he previously had signed covering these lots, he continued to receive periodic royalty payments after the sale to appellants. Although appellants now assert that they intended to purchase both surface and mineral interests from appellee, the facts belie such an assertion. We consider the facts which existed at the time of conveyance, and those which occurred afterward.
At the time of the conveyance, appellants, at the very least, had constructive notice that appellee had conveyed an oil and gas lease of the lots to an oil producing company. Appellee was receiving royalties pursuant to that lease. Appellants made no inquiry concerning the lease even though it previously had been signed and recorded. In fact, appellants admitted they purchased the two lots to build a house. Accordingly, they directed the Farmer's Home Administration to prepare an abstract limited to the surface only. Although no title opinion was introduced into evidence, the parties agree that appellants obtained one prior to the conveyance. The mineral and surface taxes on the lots had been separated and were on record when the title opinion was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Akin v. First Nat. Bank of Conway, CA
...evidence which "clearly and convincingly" warrants a finding that a mutual mistake occurred. Bicknell, supra; Turner v. Pennington, 7 Ark.App. 205, 646 S.W.2d 28 (1983). However, the proof need not be undisputed in order to obtain reformation. Winkle v. Grand Nat'l Bank, 267 Ark. 123, 601 S......
-
Stalter v. Gibson
...a question of fact. Lambert v. Quinn, 32 Ark.App. 184, 798 S.W.2d 448 (1990). We review reformation cases de novo. Turner v. Pennington, 7 Ark.App. 205, 646 S.W.2d 28 (1983). But, we do not reverse the circuit court unless its finding was clearly erroneous. Akin, supra. We also defer to the......
-
Dyson v. Ferncliff Properties, Inc., CA
...that the improper description on the disputed deed was the result of a mutual mistake between the parties. See Turner v. Pennington, 7 Ark.App. 205, 646 S.W.2d 28 (1983). Finally, appellants allege the trial court erred in failing to exclude, upon their request, witness Ray Wolf. Uniform Ru......
-
Lambert v. Quinn
...281 Ark. 481, 665 S.W.2d 862 (1984). Whether mutual mistake warranting reformation occurred is a question of fact. Turner v. Pennington, 7 Ark.App. 205, 646 S.W.2d 28 (1983). Although we review chancery cases de novo on the record, the test on review of this case is not whether we are convi......