Contract – Reformation of Deed – Mutual Mistake

Plaintiffs presented “clear, cogent and convincing evidence” to support the existence of mutual mistake.

We affirmed the trial court’s order.

Defendant appealed from the trial court’s order granting the Estate Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Among other things, Defendant argued that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding Plaintiffs’ claim of mutual mistake. We disagreed. Plaintiffs asserted a reformation claim on grounds of mutual mistake and later moved for summary judgment regarding the same. The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Defendant shows existence of mutual mistake in the contract and deed. The mistake occurred when the legal description of the property in the contract only included the parcel identification number associated with the eight-acre and seven-acre parcels of land without any additional information. The contract failed to specify that only the house and eight-acre parcel on the north side were being sold. Based on the inaccurate information provided in the contract, the deed was prepared and recorded. The record evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Defendant shows Plaintiffs did not intend to convey any land on the south side to Defendant, and Defendant understood he was only purchasing the house and eight-acre parcel on the north side. Plaintiffs listed the 10-acre tract and the eight-acre parcel—including the house—separately, and the properties had separate listing sheets. Defendant’s fiancé contacted a licensed real estate agent specifically about the house and eight-acres, and the real estate agent informed Defendant and his fiancé at the showing that the 10-acre tract on the south side was under contract. Defendant offered to purchase the property for $305,000.00, and the house and eight-acre parcel was the only property appraised by the mortgage company. Moreover, the house and eight-acre parcel appraised for $307,000.00, an amount within close range of Defendant’s offer. Additionally, when the mistake of the property conveyance was discovered, Defendant’s closing attorney stated in an email Defendant was “agreeable to correcting the situation.” Thus, through Defendant’s own admission, by and through his legal counsel, Defendant was aware of and acknowledged the mistake.

Defendant also contended that if there was any mistake at all, Plaintiffs made the mistake. Specifically, Defendant argued Plaintiffs were the ones who included a single-parcel identification number which encompassed both the eight-acre and seven-acre parcels of land in the contract and deed. The deed also included a plat map of the eight acres on the north side and seven acres on the south side. Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to support mutual mistake despite any drafting error on behalf of Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendant did not present any evidence tending to show he understood he was acquiring both the eight acres on the north side, and the seven acres on the south side. Thus, we held Plaintiffs presented “clear, cogent and convincing evidence” to support the existence of mutual mistake.

Affirmed.

Wyman v. Barber (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 011-202-25, 16 pp.) (Jefferson Griffin, J.) Appealed from Moore County Superior Court (Regina M. Joe, J.) Clarke Phifer PLLC, by Stanley W. West, for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Chris Kremer for Defendant-Appellant. North Carolina Court of Appeals