SHELL CREEK LAND CO., APPELLANT
v.
HOWARD WATSON AND ROWENA WATSON, 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.
Shell Creek Land Co. appeals a lower court decree rescinding a land sale contract and deed. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that when a contract and deed misdescribe the intended land but the parties' actual intentions are clear, equity should reform the instrument rather than rescind it, especially where the seller remains willing and able to convey the correct property.
Rescission and cancellation should not be decreed where the mistake is in the description rather than in the parties' intentions, and where reformation of the instrument will provide an adequate remedy. Since the seller is ready and willing to reform the deed to convey the land the parties actually intended to transfer, reformation is the proper relief.
“The mistake is not in what was intended to have been conveyed by either of the parties, but the mistake was in the deed and in the contract by way of an improper description.”
Establishes the critical distinction between mistakes in intention versus mistakes in description, which determines the appropriate remedy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Watsons purchased approximately 10 acres from Shell Creek Land Co. through an agent who pointed out the specific parcel they agreed to buy and pla…
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
This was a suit brought by the appellees against the appellant for rescission and cancellation of a contract and deed and for a return of the money paid for certain lands.
The bill alleges in effect that the complainants in the court below purchased certain lands from the defendant through an agent; that the agent pointed out the lands to the complainants and they agreed to buy that land which was pointed out, amounting to ten (10) acres more or less; that a paper plat had been made of the lands when the sale was made but no reliable survey had been made of it. When the survey was made the lots described in complainants’ contract did not cover the location which they had visited and selected and which both they and the agent understood they were buying and which the defendant intended to sell them.
The record shows that the defendant owned the lands which were contemplated between the parties to be sold to the complainants and that the defendant had been at all times ready and willing to convey that land to the complainants and that at the time the contract for sale was made the agent for the defendant put the complainants in actual possession of that particular piece of land which they agreed to buy and that they erected thereon certain monuments or markers.
The case does not present a proper one for decree of cancellation and rescission. The mistake is not in what Avas intended to have been conveyed by either of the parties, but the mistake was in the deed and in the contract by way of an improper description.
Cancellation will not be decreed for mistake where re*174formation of the instrument will furnish an adequate remedy.
The record here shows that reformation of the instrument will give the vendees exactly what they contracted to buy and that the vendor is ready, willing and able to make that reformation. The complainants stated frankly, when under examination as witnesses in this case, that they did not want a deed to the land which they agreed to purchase because they do not think it is now worth what they agreed to pay for it. This is no reason for cancellation and rescission. "The mere fact that an agreement is improvident is no ground for setting it aside.” Hirschman vs. Hodges, etc. Co., 59 Fla. 517, 51 Sou. 550.
"Where it is clearly shown that a conveyance of land misdescribes the land intended to be conveyed equity will reform it.” McRae vs. McMinn, 77 Fla. 876; Pryor vs. Davis, 58 Fla. 510, 50 Sou. 535; Williams vs. Bettelinni, 79 Fla. 193, 67 Sou. 857.
In Jacobs vs. Parodi, 50 Fla. 541, 39 Sou. 833, it was held:
"Where an agreement has been actually entered into, but the contract, deed or other instrument, in its written form, does not express what was really intended by the . parties thereto, equity has jurisdiction to reform the written instrument so as to make it conform to the intention, agreement and understanding of all the parties.”
For the reasons stated, the decree ’ is reversed with directions that the bill be dismissed.
Reversed.
Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.’
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Providence Square Ass'n, Inc. v. Biancardi, 507 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 1987)…operty 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. Crompton v. Kirkland, 157 Fla. 89, 24 So. 2d 902 (1946); Shell Creek Land Co. v. Watson, 101 Fla. 172, 133 So. 621 (1931); Horne v. J.C. Turner Cypress Lumber Co., 55 Fla. 690, 45 So. 1016 (1908); Herring v. Fitts, 43 Fla. 54, 30 So. 804 (1901); General Development Corp. v. Kirk, 251 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Goodstone v. Shamblen, 141 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA…
-
Tri-County Produce Distribs., Inc. v. Ne. Prod. Credit Ass'n, 160 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)…o. 2d 587. . Constitution of Florida, Art. 10, Sec. 1, F.S.A.; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Oates et ux., 122 Fla. 540, 166 So. 269. . Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Trapani (Fla.App.1960), 118 So. 2d 850; Shell Creek Land Co. v. Watson et al., 101 Fla. 172, 133 So. 621. . Crosby v. International Investment Co., Inc. (Fla.App.1958), 101 So. 2d 15. . Sumner, as administratrix, etc. v. Rhodes et al. (1828), 14 Conn. 134. . F.S. Section 695.01. F.S.A. . Tyler v. Johnson et al., 61 Fla. 730, 55 So. 870. . Zaucha e…
-
Lilly K. Heisler v. Fla. Mortg. Title & Bonding Co. & N. A. Perry, 105 Fla. 657 (Fla. 1932)…le expositor of the intention of the parties until the contrary is established. Smith v. Caravasios, 96 Fla. 219, 118 So. 10. Horne vs. J. C. Turner Cypress So., 55 Fla. 690, 45 So. 1016. In Shell Creek Land Company vs. Watson, 101 Fla. 172, [*664] 133 So. 621, it was held that where an agreement has been actually entered into, but the contract, deed, or other instrument, in its written form does not express what was really intended by the parties thereto, equity has jurisdiction to reform the written ins…
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
- Jacobs v. Parodi, 50 Fla. 541 (Fla. 1905)
- Hirschman v. Hodges, 59 Fla. 517 (Fla. 1910)
- Prior v. Davis, 58 Fla. 510 (Fla. 1909)