CALVIN MILEY AND ROSALIE MILEY, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
THELMA MILEY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Calvin and Rosalie Miley appeal a summary judgment in favor of Thelma Miley on her specific performance claim to enforce an agreement for deed. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the Mileys' counterclaim for reformation based on mutual mistake, as the statute of frauds and parol evidence rule do not bar reformation claims.
The court held that the statute of frauds is not a bar to reformation of a land contract, that the parol evidence rule does not apply where mutual mistake is alleged, and that the Mileys' counterclaim properly pleaded all necessary elements for reformation, requiring reversal of the dismissal.
[1] The statute of frauds does not bar reformation of a land contract.
[2] The parol evidence rule does not preclude consideration of evidence of mutual mistake when reformation is sought.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The statute of frauds is not a bar to reformation of a land contract.”
Establishes the primary legal principle overturning the lower court's dismissal based on statute of frauds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCalvin and Rosalie Miley agreed to convey real property to Thelma Miley and Larry Miley (Calvin's brother) under an agreement for deed, with Thelma ag…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Specific Performance Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Calvin and Rosalie Miley appeal the summary judgment entered on Thelma Miley’s complaint for specific performance of a contract to sell real estate. We hold that the trial court erred in dismissing appellants’ counterclaim for reformation and we reverse.
Appellee’s complaint alleged an agreement for deed whereby appellants agreed to convey the property to appellee and Larry Miley. Appellee agreed to pay off a mortgage on the property. Appellee complied, and appellants refused to convey it. Appellants’ amended counterclaim alleged that the agreement required an additional consideration of $1,000.00, an easement for access to a well on the property, and a right to repurchase the property should appellee elect to sell. The counterclaim noted that appellants permitted appellee and Larry Miley to occupy the property without payment of the $1,000.00 because Larry and Calvin Miley are brothers. Appellants alleged that two years later, they had a realtor draw up the agreement for deed. The written agreement omitted the terms outlined in the counterclaim through a mutual mistake or scrivener's error. The counterclaim requested reformation of the written contract to the terms stated.
Appellee moved to dismiss the counterclaim, arguing that the additional consideration was barred by the statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1979). Ap-pellee alleged that the oral promise to create an easement was similarly barred under Katcher v. Sans Souci Co., 200 So. 2d 826 (Fla.3d DCA 1967). Appellee further alleged that the court could not consider parol evidence without clear evidence of mutual mistake or fraud. The court below granted the motion to dismiss the counterclaim, and appellants, although not agreeing to the merits, stipulated to summary judgment on the remaining issues.
We hold that the grounds asserted were inadequate to require dismissal of the counterclaim. The statute of frauds is not a bar to reformation of a land contract. Genarro v. Leeper, 313 So. 2d 70 (Fla.2d DCA 1970). Katcher v. Sans Souci Co., supra, is not to the contrary, as it dealt with an attempt to place an easement on land without an underlying written memorandum to reform. We also do not think the parol evidence rule has application where mutual mistake is alleged. Otherwise, reformation would not be an available remedy under any circumstance. See Genarro v. Leeper, supra.
Below, appellants pled in their counterclaim all the necessary elements for reformation of the agreement for deed. See Jacobs v. Parodi, 50 Fla. 541, 39 So. 833 (1905); Genarro v. Leeper, supra.
The order dismissing the counterclaim is REVERSED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Royal Auto. Grp., Inc., 675 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…tute of frauds has no effect on an action to reform a written document. See Orange State Oil Co. v. Crosby, 160 Fla. 664, 36 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1948), overruled on other grounds, All Florida Sur. Co. v. Coker, 88 So. 2d 508 (Fla.1956); Miley v. Miley, 402 So. 2d 557, 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Gennaro v. Leeper, 313 So. 2d 70, 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Although case law from some jurisdictions, such as those brought to this court’s attention by Royal Group, continues to find the statute of frauds a bar to reformatio…
-
White v. Fort Myers Beach Fire Control Dist., 302 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…on claim does not warrant reversal because summary judgment was otherwise appropriate.5 Cf. Malu v. Sec. Nat'l Ins. Co., 898 So. 2d 69, 73 (Fla. 2005) ("[T]he 'tipsy coachman rule' . . . allows an appellate court to affirm a 5See Miley v. Miley, 402 So. 2d 557, 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) ("The statute of frauds is not a bar to reformation of a land contract. . . . We also do not think the parol evidence rule has application where mutual mistake is alleged. Otherwise, reformation would not be an available…
Authorities Cited
- Jacobs v. Parodi, 50 Fla. 541 (Fla. 1905)
- Gennaro v. Leeper, 313 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Katcher v. The Sans Souci Co., 200 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)