George, P. v. George, A.
816 WDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 18, 2016Background
- Patrick George (seller) agreed to sell a 15-acre parcel to his niece and nephew, Anthony and Suzanne George (the Georges), via a written sales agreement reserving "all oil, gas, coal and any other mineral rights" to Patrick.
- A general warranty deed prepared by the Georges' attorney and recorded in 2008 omitted the mineral reservation and conveyed fee simple title to the Georges.
- Patrick discovered the omission in 2013 while negotiating an oil & gas lease; the Georges' attorney admitted the deed was mistaken and drafted a corrective deed, which the Georges refused to sign.
- Patrick sued to quiet title and to reform the deed to reflect the parties' original agreement; the Georges asserted a statute-of-limitations defense (five-year limitation for specific performance) and moved for judgment on the pleadings.
- The trial court treated the action as an equitable deed reformation based on mutual mistake, denied the Georges' motion, found Patrick diligent (no laches), and reformed the deed to reserve the mineral rights to Patrick.
- The Georges appealed; the Superior Court affirmed the trial court's equitable reformation order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Patrick) | Defendant's Argument (Georges) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reformation is barred by the 5-year statute of limitations for specific performance | The claim is for equitable reformation based on mutual mistake, not specific performance, so the 5-year statute does not apply | The claim is effectively for specific performance of a real-estate bargain and is time-barred by the 5-year statute | Court held statute for specific performance does not apply; reformation is equitable and not time-barred under that statute |
| Whether laches or delay bars reformation | Patrick promptly raised the discrepancy upon discovery in 2012–2013 and filed suit after the Georges refused the corrective deed | Georges argued Patrick waited too long and equitable relief should be barred | Court found Patrick acted with due diligence, laches did not bar relief |
| Whether mutual mistake supports reformation of the deed | The written sales agreement, testimony, and the Georges' attorney's admission show a mutual mistake between parties | Georges contested existence/extent of mistake (claimed limited reservation) | Court found mutual mistake and reformed the deed to reflect the parties' intent |
| Proper remedy (reformation vs. specific performance) | Equitable reformation of the recorded deed to conform to original agreement | Georges urged specific performance or denied reformation relief | Court applied equitable reformation rather than specific performance and granted relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Regions Mortgage, Inc. v. Muthler, 889 A.2d 39 (Pa. 2005) (reformation permitted for mutual mistake)
- Bollinger v. Central Pa. Quarry Stripping & Const. Co., 229 A.2d 741 (Pa. 1967) (mutual mistake may be found even if one party denies a mistake)
- Daddona v. Thorpe, 749 A.2d 475 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standards for deed reformation review)
- Nebesho v. Brown, 846 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2004) (equitable decree review; reformation principles)
- United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. J.H. France Refractories Co., 668 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1995) (laches as equitable defense; inquiry into diligence and prejudice)
- All-Pak, Inc. v. Johnston, 694 A.2d 347 (Pa. Super. 1997) (interlocutory nature of judgment on the pleadings contrasted with final reformation order)