look at a case of its nature when you're dealing with subsequent purchasers and deep that time filing suit it's approximately eighteen years old as requiring four out the first element is knowledge of the discrepancy between the legally described property and some monument where y and mark that you're going to use as a divide that being the third step in the description by the script we start to talk about reformation and when we're dealing with subsequent purchasers as in this case both the apple i'm an your clients they never they thought they were buying twenty acres right but they know there are twenty acres but however it's part of the bat was on the west side of the road they thought they had twenty acres on that side of the heart i believe that's correct but they thought they had twenty acres and to get twenty acres thing needed to  this individual that he was only by name his side of the individuals copeland and bain went in because of the section understand that in that case the original parties knew of the discrepancy between the  and the property line and they agreed to follow the landmark not the property law the distinction when you go to the skinner person's francisco case of the deed line so he claims the additional thirty three feet and puts in a the other party asked for reformation the supreme court says you're not entitled to reformation the reason is if you see the distinctions between  this is burns did not realize that headline did not match the property law and the supreme court said have the boundary line is not in dispute nobody knows there's a problem and absence and the intention of the parties is merely to determine the exact or true  factual findings concerting who did what who understand stood what he was required to do what isn't the question before this simply whether or not just six five things in his explanation of this  and the parties only ever if they even if they did agree to use the road the supreme court instead says wait a minute that agreement is not marital settlement agreement signed by the parties their last written trash does not use the road uses a section it's incorporated into a judgment of dissolution the marriage in one nine hundred ninety one  judgment long ago was final and relief cannot yet judge so the defendant says to joe sure we just want you to modify the deed not you green and you modify the state since before abraham lincoln and the court injury may be the agreement provided that the son who the court pointed out had signed these documents not knowing the significance that the son was to execute a quit claim  convey whatever interest you had property to then came about that bank realized or it came to the point where the bank came to the conclusion that the quick to be reformed and they offered proof on that issue and then at the close of the case concluded that they really needed to fix the deed not the brain and they asked the court is very simple in our case there were three recitation was in the wind there were two there was an agreement and indeed in this case there was a recitation before the divorce in one thousand ninety one in which the parties represented they were dividing the marital stage half and a half the real estate was going to go on the east side of the road to mother power and on the west side of the road to father power and there was no dispute between the parties as to watch in fact mr po good wine said there was no mistake in the dee legal description but the deed does not do is recognize the intention of the grand tours in in dividing it east of the road and yes isn't that a mistake if it doesn't recognize the intention of the the parties sought to reformulate a deed because the state was made in the mutual understanding of the parties not a how do you know lateral dividing the property equitably dividing the marital estate equitably and ruled in favor of kristen newby that in fact the one point had acquired their interest by a survey and didn't ever think they own the property until the surveyor made the determination that it was in fact on the west so why did you not get a surveyor it's my recollection no mutual mistake between the grand jury and the grand scheme is nobody real that there was a discrepancy between that hedge row or hedge dams and the actual property line by thirty three feet therefore the parties quote not come to an agreement to move the line they didn't know so there mr and mrs pollard knew that there was a discrepancy between the road and the actual property line the dividing line nothing and in fact as i that in the trial court so mr pollard and mrs pollard could not reach a mutual agreement to use the rope if they didn't know there was a distinction between the road and the section on believe it goes to this headline they were all wrong it's the same thing that happened here with olives the people did not realize about this  grand teves but the subsequent grantee everybody knew of the difference so that's nothing if if at the time of the divorce they had realized mr power was getting a tax on thirty property they thought they were getting twenty  just in disregard of skitter i don't believe they're in disregarding yeah and sheen or the facts are different than the case before this court and the case before the supreme court because in the lore every ody knew of the discrepancies between the property line and the monument and backatcha bro and skinner nobody knew of the discrepancy between the hedge line the monument and the property line in this case the clear evidence for judge shook was that none of these parties knew both the discrepancy if they don't know that there is a problem and her successors in title cheat conveyed to did not know mr skinner and mr francisco didn't know there was a problem therefore there was no agreement that's exactly