Seamons v. Wiser
462 P.3d 387
Utah Ct. App.2020Background
- In 1980 Lawrence and Billie Lou Wiser conveyed a parcel (the Wiser Parcel) to their son Larry and his wife Patricia; a contiguous seventy-five‑foot "Strip" lay immediately east and an additional eastern parcel contained the parents’ home (Seamons Parcel).
- In 2000 quitclaim deeds shifted the recorded Wiser Parcel roughly 35 feet west to match the improvements, creating a 35‑foot wide unrecorded gap (the Gap) between the Wiser Parcel and the Seamons parcel; the Gap remained titled to the family trust.
- In 2006 Lawrence and Billie Lou sold the farm to James and Kadi Seamons; the Warranty Deed excluded the Wiser Parcel but used a legal description (drawn from a tax‑roll error) that effectively included the Gap.
- The Seamonses farmed and used the Strip/Gap after the purchase; in 2014 they discovered the Gap remained titled to the trust and requested a quitclaim; Lawrence instead conveyed the Gap to Larry and Patricia.
- The Seamonses sued to reform the 2006 Warranty Deed to reflect the parties’ mutual intent and transfer the Gap to them; at bench trial each side proffered surveyor testimony and other extrinsic evidence of intent; the district court reformed the deed and the Wisers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Seamons) | Defendant's Argument (Wiser) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Wisers preserve claim that the district court erred by not ruling on their motion to dismiss (laches/statute of limitations)? | Court failed to rule on the motion; this omission is appealable error. | They did not preserve the challenge because they failed to object post‑judgment or seek additional findings. | Waived: appeal rejected because Wisers did not give the trial court an opportunity to correct the omission. |
| May extrinsic/parol evidence be used to show mutual mistake absent an ambiguity in an unambiguous deed? | Reform should not rely on extrinsic evidence because the Warranty Deed’s description was clear and unambiguous. | Parol evidence is admissible to show mutual mistake and to reform an instrument even if the description is definite. | Reformation exception to parol evidence rule applies; trial court properly considered extrinsic evidence to decide mutual mistake. |
| Did the Seamonses prove mutual mistake by clear and convincing evidence so as to justify reformation? | The evidence (surveyor’s findings, prior tax‑roll error, parties’ statements, use/possession of Gap) shows mutual mistake and intent to convey the Gap. | Evidence insufficient; findings were inconsistent or unsupported and could be interpreted differently. | Affirmed: factual findings supported by record and not clearly erroneous; burden met. |
| Did the court improperly discount Wisers’ proffered expert surveyor testimony? | The court incorrectly stated the Wisers offered no expert to dispute creation of the Gap. | The court’s limited finding addressed lack of expert evidence disputing Mr. Hansen’s explanation of how the Gap was created; even if erroneous, any error was harmless. | Affirmed: court’s treatment was within discretion or any error was harmless and would not change outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neeley v. Kelsch, 600 P.2d 979 (Utah 1979) (parol evidence admissible to reform instrument where writing does not reflect parties’ true intent)
- Jensen v. Manila Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints, 565 P.2d 63 (Utah 1977) (parol evidence admissible in reformation actions despite apparently definite descriptions)
- Union Bank v. Swenson, 707 P.2d 663 (Utah 1985) (explaining parol evidence rule for contracts)
- Vandermeide v. Young, 296 P.3d 787 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (standard and burden for deed reformation/mutual mistake)
- 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 99 P.3d 801 (Utah 2004) (preservation requirement: party must give trial court opportunity to correct errors; object or seek additional findings)
- Armed Forces Ins. Exch. v. Harrison, 70 P.3d 35 (Utah 2003) (harmless‑error standard for findings)
- Peterson v. Pierce, 440 P.3d 833 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (appellate review framework for deed reformation)
- Plateau Mining Co. v. Utah Div. of State Lands & Forestry, 802 P.2d 720 (Utah 1990) (role of ambiguity in contract interpretation)