32 N.C. App. 55 - Durham v. Creech’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 31 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Where a deed fails to express the true intention of the parties, and that failure is due to the mutual mistake of the parties, or to the mistake of one party induced by fraud of the other, or to the mistake of the draftsman, the deed may be reformed to express the parties’ true intent. Parker v. Pittman, 18 N.C. App. 500 , 197 S.E. 2d 570 (1973). . . . * * * When, due to the mutual mistake of the parties, or perhaps a mistake by their draftsman, the agreement expressed in a written instrument differs from the agreement actually made by the parties, the equitable remedy of reformation is available. However, reformation on grounds of mutual mistake is available only where the evidence is clear, cogent and convincing. Parker v. Pittman, supra. . . . Reformation is not barred because Margie Creech conveyed the land to third parties, the Smiths. In Archer v. McClure, 166 N.C. 140, 144 , 81 S.E. 1081 (1914), our Supreme Court said: ‘. . . where because of mistake an instrument does not express the real intention of the parties, equity will correct the mistake unless the rights of third parties, having prior and better equities, have intervened.’ A third party’s equities are not great enough unless he is a bona fide purchaser, i.e., one who purchases without notice, actual or constructive, and who pays valuable consideration. Morehead v. Harris, 262 N.C. 330 , 137 S.E. 2d 174 (1964); Crews v. Crews, 210 N.C. 217 , 186 S.E. 156 (1936); Dobbs, Remedies, § 11.6 (1973).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 43 N.C. App. 739 - Phillips v. Woxman

2. “When, due to the mutual mistake of the parties, or perhaps a mistake by their draftsman, the agreement expressed in a written instrument differs from the agreement actually made by the parties, the equitable remedy of reformation is available. . . . [[Image here]] It is immaterial whether the mistake arose out of the attorney’s ignorance. This is not a case where reformation is sought of a bare mistake of law. A bare mistake of law generally affords no grounds for reformation. Trust Company v. Braznell, 227 N.C. 211 , 41 S.E. 2d 744 (1947). There is evidence that the parties agreed and intended to reserve a life estate. The instrument purporting to reserve the life estate, executed along with the deed, was ineffectual, which may be a mistake of law as to the legal efficacy of the transaction. However, the failure to accomplish the intention of the parties, to reserve a life estate, was a mistake of fact which will afford reformation. See, Trust Company v. Braznell, supra. Evidence which tends to show the draftsman’s error also tends to show that the parties were mistaken in their beliefs. The evidence would support a finding of mutual mistake by the parties.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McBride v. Johnson Oil & Tractor Co.

3. “[R]eformation on grounds of mutual mistake is available only where the evidence is clear, cogent and convincing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Light v. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR. SOC., ETC.