JOHN DAVID BRYANT, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Wieczoreck v. H & H Builders, Inc., 475 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1985)
  …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 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962) (cancellation of deed and mortgage). [*229] The majority fails to discuss the common law reason, previously reaffirmed by this Court, for…
• Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Allied Elec. Co., 319 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
  …cy that it correctly expresses the intention of the parties. Continental Casualty Company v. City of Ocala, Fla.1930, 99 Fla. 851, 127 So. 894; Old Colony Insurance Company v. Trapani, Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d 850, 853; Sobel v. Lobel, Fla.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 195, 197; Allstate Insurance Company v. Vanater, Fla.1974, 297 So. 2d 293, 295. We are of the opinion that the trial court’s finding, that there was a mutual mistake requiring reformation of the insurance contract, had sufficient support from the eviden…
• Ayers v. Thompson, 536 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
  …07 So. 2d at 1370. In a suit for reformation, the evidence of mistake, whether mutual or unilateral, must be clear and convincing. See Robinson v. Wright, 425 So. 2d 589; Watkins v. DeAdamich, 187 So. 2d 369, 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Sobel v. Lobel, 168 So. 2d 195, 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). Parol evidence is admissible in a reformation action in equity for the purpose of demonstrating that the true intent of the parties was something other than that expressed in the written instrument. By the same token, “the d…

Authorities Cited

• Perez v. State, 151 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)