T. J. PRIOR AND ONA PRIOR, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM M. DAVIS AND J. T. BROOKS, 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 Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision denying reformation of a deed, holding that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove a parol agreement for a larger land conveyance.
No, the evidence was not full, clear, and convincing enough to establish the alleged parol agreement, and therefore, reformation of the deed was not warranted.
“where it is sought to have such a conveyance reformed so as to comply with a parol agreement alleged to have been made with reference to the conveyance before its execution, the proof of the parol agreement should at least be full, clear and convincing.”
establishes the standard of proof required for deed reformation based on a parol agreement.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants sought to reform a deed conveying 80 acres of land to include an additional 28 acres, based on an alleged prior parol agreement. The appell…
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 Parol Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
The appellants seek by bill in equity brought in the Circuit Court for Santa Eosa County to have a deed conveying 80 acres of land to the appellant Ona Prior reformed so as to cover 108 acres of land in accordance with an alleged parol agreement made before the execution of the deed of conveyance. The answer specifically denies the equities set up in the bill of complaint. Testimony was taken and a decree rendered for the defendants from which an appeal was taken by the complainants.
The execution of a deed conveying real estate is an act of importance that is presumed to have been done with deliberation and care; and where it is sought to have such a conveyance reformed so as to comply with a parol agreement alleged to have been made with reference to the conveyance before its execution, the proof of the parol agreement should at least be full, clear and convincing. Geter v. Simmons, 57 Fla. 423, 49 South. Rep. 131; Jacobs v. Parodi, 50 Fla. 541, 39 South Rep. 833; Knight & Co. v. Turner Cypress Co., 55 Fla. 690, 45 South. Rep. 1016.
In this case the testimony as to the alleged parol agreement that one hundred and eight acres of land would be conveyed when in fact the conveyance covered only eighty acres, is conflicting and is not so full, clear and convincing in favor of reformation as to warrant this court in holding that the chancellor erred in decreeing against reformation.
The decree is affirmed.
Shackleford and Cockrell, JJ., concur. Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Vanater, 297 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1974)…ond a reasonable doubt. 16 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, pp. 869 and 879, and numerous citations; Knight, Norman & Co. v. J. C. Turner Cypress Lumber Co., 55 Fla. 690, 45 So. 1016; Indian River Mfg. Co. v. Wooten, 55 Fla. 745, 46 So. 185; Prior v. Davis, 58 Fla. 510, 50 So. 535.” This Court in Rosenthal v. First National Fire Insurance Co. of United States, 74 Fla. 371, 77 So. 92 (1917), declared: “In reforming a policy of insurance, like that of any other written contract, the want of conformity to the agree…
-
Fid. Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Hilliard, 65 Fla. 443 (Fla. 1913)…easonable doubt. 16 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, pp. 869 and 879 and numerous citations; Knight, Norman & Co. v. Turner C. L. Co., 55 Fla. 690, 45 South. Rep. 1016; Indian River Mfg. Co. v. Wooten, 55 Fla. 745, 46 South. [*447] Rep. 185; Prior v. Davis, 58 Fla. 510, 50 South. Rep. 535. Guided by these rules we are of the opinion, after careful consideration of the evidence submitted in the record, that it does not justify the reformation decreed in this case. There is no proof that if there was a mistake made…
-
Wieczoreck v. H & H Builders, Inc., 475 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1985)…); Beverly Beach Properties, Inc. v. Nelson, 68 So. 2d 604 (Fla.1953), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 816, 75 S.Ct. 27, 99 L.Ed. 643 (1954) (reformation of lease); Fletcher v. Moriarty, 62 Fla. 482, 56 So. 437 (1911) (cancellation of lease); Prior v. Davis, 58 Fla. 510, 50 So. 535 (1909) (reformation of deed). See also Harris v. Harris, 260 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972) (cancellation of deed); Sobel v. Lobel, 168 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) (reformation of stock sale agreement); Nussey v. Caufield, 146 So. 2d 7…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wyatt J. Geter v. Simmons, 57 Fla. 423 (Fla. 1909)
- Jacobs v. Parodi, 50 Fla. 541 (Fla. 1905)
- Horne v. The J. C. Turner Cypress Lumber Co., 55 Fla. 690 (Fla. 1908)