Smith-Gilbard v. Perry
332 S.W.3d 709
Tex. App.2011Background
- Perry conveyed a parcel to Smith-Gilbard via a 2002 warranty deed described by metes and bounds, incorporating a 1965 warranty deed.
- The contract described Lot 125, Block C.A. Lovejoy Addition, Kaufman, with a 113 × 200 feet measurement near 1003 W. Grove; Perry's son provided the dimensions.
- Perry did not inform Smith-Gilbard she intended to convey only up to the fence line east of which the property lay.
- A third of the front service road parcel lay east of a fence line, later identified as a highway frontage easement; taxes and plans reflected the 2002 description.
- Perry sued for reformation, alleging mutual mistake; the trial court awarded reformation to Perry, which Smith-Gilbard appeals.
- The appellate court reverses, holding no legally or factually sufficient evidence of mutual mistake.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mutual mistake sufficiency | Perry argues both parties shared a mistake about the boundary description. | Smith-Gilbard contends no shared misunderstanding; metes and bounds control and there was no mutual mistake. | Evidence insufficient; reverse and render for Smith-Gilbard |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Conner, 260 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. App.- Tyler 2008) (mutual mistake requires same misunderstanding of same material fact)
- Estes v. Republic Nat'l Bank of Dallas, 462 S.W.2d 273 (Tex. 1970) (mutual mistake doctrine requires showing writing reflects the true agreement)
- Williams v. Glash, 789 S.W.2d 261 (Tex. 1990) (doctrine not to be used to avoid an unhappy bargain)
- City of The Colony v. N. Tex. Mun. Water Dist., 272 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth 2008) (final writings control; not subjective intentions)
- Holley v. Grigg, 65 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. App.- Eastland 2001) (unilateral mistake cannot grounds for relief)
- Johnson v. Snell, 504 S.W.2d 397 (Tex. 1974) (unilateral mistake does not support relief)
- Thalman v. Martin, 635 S.W.2d 411 (Tex. 1982) (reformation for omitted term varies by context)
- Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. Hart, 340 S.W.2d 775 (Tex. 1960) (specific descriptions prevail over general descriptions)
- Capitol Rod & Gun Club v. Lower Colorado River Authority, 622 S.W.2d 887 (Tex. Civ. App.- Austin 1981) (subjective intent not controlling in unambiguous writing)