ALBERT JOHN SIERRA, SR., AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF INES LEE BOTTARI SIERRA, APPELLANT,
v.
GUILIA B. ALBERS AND ROBERTA A. SPEER AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF MARY FRANCIS BOTTARI SIERRA, APPELLEES
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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a probate court's reformation of a deed that had excluded one grantee's residual beneficiaries from property interests. The court held that the trial court lacked an evidentiary basis to reform the deed under the applicable legal standards for deed reformation.
The trial court erred in reforming the deed because there was no evidence of mutual mistake, fraud, overreaching, or an erroneous land description—the legal bases required to support deed reformation under Florida law.
[1] A court of equity may reform a written instrument when a mutual mistake causes the instrument to fail to express the true intention or agreement of the parties.
[2] The principle of reformation for mutual mistake applies to instruments of conveyance of real property.
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“A court of equity has the power to reform a written instrument where, due to a mutual mistake, the instrument as drawn does not accurately express the true intention or agreement of the parties to the instrument.”
Establishes the legal standard for deed reformation in Florida requiring mutual mistake
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA deed naming three grantees was reformed by the trial court sitting in probate to vest title in only two of the three grantees, thereby excluding the…
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 Reformation Of Instruments cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
A detailed restatement of the events giving rise to the instant appeal is not essential to our determination that the trial court, sitting in probate, erroneously reformed a deed to vest title to real property in two of the three grantees, thus excluding the third grantee’s residual beneficiaries from an interest in the property.
The record before us, when tested by the well-settled standards applicable to the reformation of an instrument, simply will not sustain the trial court’s action. Our supreme court has most recently stated that: “A court of equity has the power to reform a written instrument where, due to a mutual mistake, the instrument as drawn does not accurately express the true intention or agreement of the parties to the instrument.” Providence Square Association, Inc. v. Biancardi, 507 So. 2d 1366, 1369 (Fla.1987). The foregoing “principle is applicable to instruments of conveyance of real property as well as to contracts and can be applied to correct an erroneous land description in order to protect a person’s rights in real property.” 507 So. 2d at 1369.
We find nothing in the record disclosing that a mutual mistake, fraud or overreaching occurred in the creation of the deed or that it defectively represents a true purpose to name a third grantee. Moreover, there is no contention before us, nor was there one before the trial court, that the deed contains an erroneous land description. In short, reformation in the present matter was undertaken wholly without an evidentiary basis for that kind of relief.
Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the trial court’s order. DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Residences at the Bath Club Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Bath Club Ent., LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…licensing. “A court of equity has the power to reform a written instrument where, due to a mutual mistake, the instrument as drawn does not accurately express the true intention or agreement of the parties to the instrument.” Sierra v. Albers, 540 So. 2d 907, 907–08 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), (citing Providence Square Ass’n, Inc. v. Biancardi, 507 So. 2d 1366, 1369 (Fla.1987)). The foregoing “principle is applicable to instruments of conveyance of real property as well as to contracts.” Id. In a related is…
-
Golden Door Jewelry Creations, Inc. v. Lloyds Underwriters, 748 F. Supp. 1529 (S.D. Fla. 1990)…ual mistake, the instrument as drawn does not accurately express the true intention or agreement of the parties to the instrument.” Providence Square Assoc., Inc. v. Biancardi, 507 So.2d 1366, 1369 (Fla.1987), quoted in Sierra v. Albers, 540 So.2d 907 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). A policy for insurance may be reformed, even after *1545 loss, so as to express the real agreement between the parties. Gibson v. American Ins. Co., 146 Fla. 171, 200 So. 357 (1941). These same principles apply equall…
Authorities Cited
- Providence Square Ass'n, Inc. v. Biancardi, 507 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 1987)