In Re:Trust of Mihordin, M. Appeal of: Mihordin,V.
162 A.3d 1166
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 1995 the Pozzutos (sellers) and Richard & Marilyn Mihordin (buyers) executed a Real Estate Sales Agreement for a riverfront parcel: $20,000 total, deed to be delivered upon full payment; Agreement included clause "Upon the death of Buyers, the land is to revert back to Sellers."
- In 1998 the Pozzutos executed a deed transferring the parcel to the Mihordins in fee simple; the attorney who drafted both documents (Panella) did not reference the 1995 Agreement and the deed did not include any reversionary or life‑estate language.
- Marilyn later placed the parcel into an irrevocable trust in 2011 naming her daughters Lynda Pozzuto and appellant Vicki Mihordin as beneficiaries; Marilyn died in 2014.
- In 2015 the Pozzutos filed to reform the 1998 deed to reflect a reversionary (remainder) interest in their favor, alleging a scrivener’s error and the parties’ intent embodied in the 1995 Agreement; the trial court granted reformation.
- Appellant appealed, arguing merger of the 1995 Agreement into the 1998 deed and that the Pozzutos failed to prove scrivener’s error by clear and convincing evidence; appellant also raised Dead Man’s Act evidentiary issues.
- The Superior Court reversed: it held the Pozzutos failed to overcome the presumptive merger of the sale agreement into the deed and that Attorney Panella’s testimony was legally insufficient and unreliable to prove the required clear, precise, and convincing evidence of a scrivener’s error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pozzutos) | Defendant's Argument (Mihordin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1998 deed should be reformed for scrivener’s error / mutual mistake | Panella made a scrivener’s error omitting a life estate/reversion reflected in the 1995 Agreement; parol evidence may show intent | The 1998 deed superseded (merged) the 1995 Agreement; Pozzutos failed to prove scrivener’s error by clear and convincing evidence | Reformation denied; evidence insufficient to meet high proof standard |
| Whether the merger doctrine bars enforcement of the 1995 Agreement’s reversionary term after delivery of the deed | The parties intended the reversionary interest to survive; merger should not apply where intent is otherwise | Delivery and acceptance of the deed presumptively merged the prior contract; no clear manifest intent to the contrary in the record | Merger applies; alleged reversion did not survive the deed |
| Admissibility / weight of Attorney Panella’s testimony (Dead Man’s Act and credibility) | Panella’s testimony explains omission and supports reformation; Dead Man’s Act does not bar his testimony | Panella never met the Mihordins, his testimony is inconsistent, and may be incompetent to establish their intent; possible Dead Man’s Act issues | Panella’s testimony found unreliable and insufficient; Court declines to base reformation on it |
| Whether delay/negligence in discovering discrepancy defeats equitable relief | Pozzutos contend reformation allowable despite delay if elements met | Appellant argues long delay and parties’ opportunity to discover discrepancy (including Lynda) weigh against equitable relief | Delay and lack of corroborating evidence undermine equitable relief; reformation denied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re La-Rocca’s Trust Estate, 192 A.2d 409 (Pa. 1963) (sets high clear, precise, convincing proof standard for reformation of written instruments)
- Dobkin v. Landsberg, 116 A. 814 (Pa. 1922) (presumption that an antecedent land-sale contract merges into the deed upon delivery absent clear contrary intent)
- Carsek Corp. v. Stephen Schifter, Inc., 246 A.2d 365 (Pa. 1968) (merger doctrine does not apply where contractual stipulations are collateral to the deed’s functions)
- In re Duncan’s Estate, 232 A.2d 717 (Pa. 1967) (parol evidence may prove scrivener’s mistake; same proof standard for unilateral and mutual mistakes)
- Easton v. Washington County Ins. Co., 137 A.2d 332 (Pa. 1957) (mistake must be proved by two witnesses or one plus corroborating circumstances)
- DiMaio v. Musso, 762 A.2d 363 (Pa. Super. 2000) (transferors’ subjective belief less important than objective manifestations; scrivener’s error relief appropriate in some deed disputes)