Section 36 Mutual Mistake of Fact

• Library: Remedies 2006

The principal ground for reformation is a mutual mistake. It occurs when both parties have done what neither intended to do. Devino v. Starks, 132 S.W.3d 307, 310 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004); see also J.E. Hathman, Inc. v. Sigma Alpha Epsilon Club, 491 S.W.2d 261, 268 (Mo. banc 1973); King v. Riley, 498 S.W.2d 564, 566 (Mo. 1973). An action for reformation based on mutual mistake requires proof of three elements:

1. A preexisting agreement

2. The mistake

3. The mutuality of the mistake

Devino, 132 S.W.3d at 310. The same proof is required to reform a deed. Wates v. Joerger, 907 S.W.2d 294, 296 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995). The source of the mistake is not relevant. Elton v. Davis, 123 S.W.3d 205, 213 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003).

In the case of reformation of a beneficiary deed after the grantor’s death, the grounds are controlled by statute. Section 461.054, RSMo 2000. The statutory list includes fraud, undue influence, and duress, but not mistake. Groh v. Ballard, 965 S.W.2d 872 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998). A mistake will not support reformation of a beneficiary deed after the grantor’s death. Id.

As an equitable remedy, the suitability of reformation is a...