Czeczotka v. Roode
130 Conn. App. 90
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Administrator's deed (1939) conveys a seventy-acre parcel in Griswold to Victor Czeczotka, referencing two prior deeds describing two seventy-acre parcels.
- Disputed parcel, approx. 29 unimproved acres near plaintiffs’ parcels, lies within the boundaries described by the first prior deed but not within either of the two described parcels in the later mortgage deeds.
- Plaintiffs’ father executed four mortgages (1939–1948) affecting the property; three of the four encumber the disputed parcel according to title expert Harvey.
- Plaintiffs’ father died intestate in 1966; probate certificate of descent purported to convey all property acquired under the administrator’s deed to plaintiffs and their deceased siblings, excluding a parcel already conveyed.
- Defendant Roode alleged mutual mistake in including the disputed parcel in the administrator’s deed and sought reformation; plaintiffs denied any mistake and defended title.
- Trial court, after evidence, held no mutual mistake and denied reformation; defendant appealed seeking articulation and appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the administrator's deed was the result of mutual mistake | Czeczotka: deed intended to convey disputed parcel | Roode: deed included parcel by mistake; should be reformed | No; mutual mistake not proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether the disputed parcel was intended to be conveyed by the administrator's deed | Harvey: parcel within boundaries of conveyed property | Roode: parcel not intended to be conveyed; not within description | Yes; evidence supported that parcel fell within conveyed boundaries |
| Standard and sufficiency for reformation | Reformation appropriate where writing misstates agreement due to mutual mistake | Reformation required clear and convincing proof of mutual mistake | Not warranted; record failed to meet clear-and-convincing standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopinto v. Haines, 185 Conn. 527 (1981) (clear and convincing standard for deed reformation)
- Blow v. Konetchy, 107 Conn. App. 777 (2008) (reformation depends on mutual mistake and proper scope)
- Blackwell v. Mahmood, 120 Conn. App. 690 (2010) (standard of review for trial court's factual findings overlaps substantial evidence)