858 N.W.2d 386
Wis. Ct. App.2014Background
- Six contiguous Lake Metonga parcels were split from common ownership; a private road runs east–west across them connecting Zinzer Road (east) to Risser Road (west).
- The owners executed a recorded Road Maintenance Declaration (1989) creating a "permanent easement and right-of-way" over the private road, but Schedule A mistakenly contained the legal description of only the Bryant/Aerts parcel.
- Subsequent deeds to other lot owners referenced the easement as the "existing private roadway" shown on a certified survey map that omitted certain parcels, creating potential ambiguity about the easement's scope.
- The Aertses (successors to the Bryants) purchased the Bryant parcel, later blocked the road, and were sued by neighboring owners seeking enforcement of easement rights; the circuit court granted a preliminary injunction and held a bench trial.
- At trial the drafting attorney testified the omission of other parcels’ legal descriptions from Schedule A was a mutual drafting mistake; the trial court reformed the Declaration to add the omitted parcel descriptions and found the Declaration—read with extrinsic evidence—described the easement with reasonable certainty.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding the instrument met the statute of frauds’ "reasonable certainty" test, parol evidence was admissible for identification, and mutual mistake justified reformation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Declaration satisfies the statute of frauds / describes the easement with reasonable certainty | Preziosos: The Declaration (plus extrinsic evidence) identifies the existing road and parcels; parol evidence may clarify identity | Aertses: Description is insufficient (no legal description); statute of frauds voids easement and parol evidence cannot supply essential terms | Held: Instrument describes the easement with reasonable certainty; parol evidence admissible for identification because the writing furnishes a sufficient "key" or link |
| Whether reformation is available for mutual mistake and whether Aertses are protected as innocent purchasers | Preziosos: Drafting omission was mutual mistake; reformation restores parties’ true agreement | Aertses: They were bona fide purchasers; inequitable to reform to their detriment | Held: Clear and convincing evidence of mutual mistake (drafting attorney’s testimony); trial court credibility findings show Aertses were not innocent in the sense that defeats reformation; reformation proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Wiegand v. Gissal, 28 Wis. 2d 488 (1965) (property description must be to "reasonable certainty" to satisfy statute of frauds)
- State v. Conway, 34 Wis. 2d 76 (1967) (parol evidence may be used to identify land if description permits reasonable certainty)
- Anderson v. Quinn, 306 Wis. 2d 686 (Ct. App. 2007) (legal description not required; description must allow identification with reasonable certainty)
- Stuesser v. Ebel, 19 Wis. 2d 591 (1963) (parol evidence admissible only if the written description furnishes a foundation/link to the extrinsic evidence)
- Thiel v. Jahns, 252 Wis. 27 (1947) (parol cannot supply an essential term where the writing is indefinite)
- 303, LLC v. Born, 344 Wis. 2d 364 (Ct. App. 2012) (clarifies the "link" requirement for admitting parol evidence to identify land)
- Konneker v. Romano, 326 Wis. 2d 268 (2010) (contract interpretation: look to instrument first; if ambiguous, extrinsic evidence may show intent)