Walter v. Myers

• Decision Date: 26 February 1952
• Docket Number: No. 34844,34844
• Citation: 241 P.2d 393,206 Okla. 100
• Parties: WALTER v. MYERS.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 393

241 P.2d 393

206 Okla. 100

WALTER v. MYERS.

No. 34844.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Feb. 26, 1952.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. In a suit for reformation of a deed it is competent to show the conduct, declarations and statements of the parties just before and at the time of the execution of the instruments.

2. An action for the reformation of a deed, based upon mistake of fact, is an action of equitable cognizance. The general rule is that when, because of a mistake of fact, an instrument does not express the true intention of the parties, equity will correct such mistake unless the rights of third parties intervene.

3. 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, reforming the contract, 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.

4. 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.

Wise & Ivester, of Sayre, for plaintiff in error.

Willingham & Fariss, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

GIBSON, Justice.

We shall refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court. Plaintiff in error was defendant.

Plaintiff instituted this action by filing her petition wherein it is alleged: that she was formerly the owner of a described quarter section of land in Beckham County, and that in January 1946 she entered into an oral contract to sell the property to defendant for $3500 reserving one-eighth of the oil, gas and other minerals in and under said property for a period of twenty years and as long thereafter as oil and/or gas was being produced from said property; that on January 28, 1946, she executed a deed and contract, being advised that the contract would serve to save defendant certain income taxes.

It is further alleged that the deed did not comply with the agreement between the parties in that it failed to contain the clause, following the reservation of mineral rights, 'and as long thereafter as oil and/or gas was being produced from said premises in paying quantities', and that the omission was not discovered by plaintiff until late in the year 1947. Plaintiff further alleges that she then contacted defendant, before witnesses, when defendant acknowledged a mutual mistake of the parties, but asked time to think it over, but has neglected and refused to correct the error to meet the agreement and intention of the parties. Plaintiff alleged she had been put to expense and prayed reformation of the deed and that she have judgment for $1000 actual damages and $10,000 punitive damages.

An amended petition was filed amplifying her allegations as to actual and punitive damages.

Defendant's answer was a general denial with admission of having entered into a written contract with plaintiff on January 28, 1946, and alleges that said written contract and deed expressed the true and complete contract of purchase.

The case was tried to the court and a jury. A verdict by the jury found for the plaintiff and that the deed and contract was a mutual mistake and should be reformed and further that plaintiff should recover of defendant the sum of $350 with 6% interest from date of judgment. During the trial the court sustained a demurrer as to the claim for punitive damages.

Following the return of the verdict the court rendered a judgment reciting the verdict and approving the findings of the jury, and thereupon specifically found that there was a mutual mistake between the parties in execution of the deed and that plaintiff had sustained actual damages in the sum of $350, and rendered judgment accordingly. From this judgment and the order overruling a motion for new trial, defendant appeals.

In his petition in error defendant sets out error in the giving of certain instructions but in his brief he admits that this was an equity case and that the verdict of the jury was not binding on the trial court but advisory merely, and that in the last analysis the findings and decisions were those of the court and not the jury. Specifications of error in the giving of instructions were abandoned.

For reversal defendant urges that to warrant a reformation of a written instrument the mistake must be a mutual mistake and that the evidence necessary to support a reformation must be clear, full, decisive and convincing, and it is urged that the evidence of the plaintiff in this case was insufficient to sustain the judgment when measured by the well established rules.

On many points the evidence in this case was in sharp conflict and there was considerable evidence offered on points that were immaterial to the real issue. The parties were well acquainted with each other, owning adjoining lands and no misunderstanding had ever arisen between them prior to this controversy. Plaintiff was a widow and in poor health, and she decided to sell the farm which she had then owned for 17 years. It was advertised for sale. Defendant visited plaintiff at her home and made inquiry as to her terms. She testified that her price was $4000 with a reservation of 40 acres royalty. She had sold 80 acres of the minerals. That defendant said he would not take it with a reservation of 40 acres as that would cloud his title. She refused to sell without reserving some of the royalty.

Plaintiff testified that defendant inquired if she would take some term royalty and mentioned a 20 year term; that she advised that if he would assume the $700.00 loan on the farm and pay cash for the balance she would deal on the 20 year term with the understanding that if there was no oil or gas produced on the place within the term she would turn back the place and his title would not be clouded, but if oil and gas was produced it was to be hers so long as there was production. To this defendant replied that he wouldn't do that for any one else but he knew she had worked hard on the farm, and had reared her children there and that he would make the deal as she had suggested.

In giving this testimony plaintiff was corroborated by the testimony of one Mrs. Dolk, who was present during the negotiations.

In a suit for reformation of a deed it is competent to show the conduct and declarations of the parties just before the at the time of the execution of the instrument. Oklahoma City Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Clifton, 183 Okl. 74, 80 P.2d 283.

Later defendant came to her wanting to make a three-way trade, whereby he was to dispose of a farm he owned in Roger Mills County for $2500 to apply on the purchase price of her farm. The parties met in a lawyer's office in Elk City where a three party contract was drawn, wherein it was agreed that defendant would convey to plaintiff a farm he owned in Roger Mills County, reserving an undivided one-half interest in the minerals, and plaintiff was to convey her farm to defendant, reserving an undivided 1/8th interest in the minerals for a period of 20 years, defendant to assume the balance of a loan for $700 which plaintiff had on her farm; and plaintiff was to convey to the third party, J. W. Poston, the farm in Roger Mills County which defendant was conveying to her. The deal was to be completed within 30 days. The mentioned deeds were drawn. The office had no notary and plaintiff desired to have them taken to Judge Gilkerson, a practicing attorney, she said, for notarizing, while other witnesses said she wanted Gilkerson to examine the instruments. ...