[brief] THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY ORDERED REFORMATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND OPERATING AGREEMENT  The reformation of a contract is an “extraordinary remedy. ”  *Martinez v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co.*, 145 N.J. Super. 301, 312 (App. Div. 1976), *certif. denied*, 74 N.J. 253 (1977) (internal citations omitted).  “For a court to grant reformation there must be ‘clear and convincing proof’ that the contract in its reformed, and not original, form is the one that the contracting parties understood and meant it to be. ”  *Cent. State Bank v. Hudik-Ross Co., Inc.*, 164 N.J. Super. 317, 323-324 (App. Div. 1978), *citing Brodzinsky v. Pulek*, 75 N.J. Super. 40, 48 (App. Div.), *certif. denied*, 38 N.J. 304 (1962).  It is clear the reformed terms of the Redevelopment Agreement and Operating Agreement, as contemplated by the March 15, 2024 Order, are not what the [...] agreed to in 2005 and 2006 when these agreements were executed.  It is required “for reformation for mutual mistake that the minds of the parties have met and reached a prior existing agreement, which the written document fails to express. ”  *Bonnco Petrol, Inc. v. Epstein*, 115 N.J. 599, 608 (1989) (internal citations omitted).  Where no mutual mistake exists, reformation of a contract may be granted only when the facts of the case give rise to equitable fraud.  *Id.* at 609.  Where reformation is appropriate, the purpose “is to restore the parties to the status quo ante and prevent the party who is responsible for the misrepresentations from gaining a benefit. ”  *Id.* at 612.  At trial, [...] never established that a mutual mistake of the parties or fraudulent conduct on the part of the [...] existed.  The trial record is clear the [...] never engaged in bad faith or fraudulent conduct.  [...] cannot point to a single fact in the record to suggest otherwise.  Instead, it relies on references to “unconscionable results of this contractual relationship. ”  *See,* [...] Br. at 43.  [...]’s dissatisfaction with the Project resulting from the Redevelopment Agreement and Operating Agreement does not equate to unconscionable conduct by the [...] in drafting or performing under either agreement.  Immediately after trial, the trial court confirmed there was no evidence of fraud on the part of the [...].  “I don’t believe that the Parking [...] was dealing in bad faith or defrauding [...] or somehow entered into this massive reconstruction project, which is extremely beneficial to the [...] and its citizens and the public, where they duped them into this and we're never going to build this. ”  5T 26:12-18.  The record below is clear -- the well-established standard for reformation of contract has not been met in this case.  The [...], at all times, acted in accordance with the terms of the subject agreements.  The terms of the Redevelopment Agreement and Operating Agreement, as reformed by the March 15, 2024 Order, do not reflect the terms the [...] agreed to, and do not reflect the meeting of the minds nearly twenty (20) years ago when these agreements were reduced to writing.  For these reasons, the trial court erred in reforming the Redevelopment Agreement and Operating Agreement.