State Farm Mut. The trial court's decision is supported by evidence in the record, and we will not reverse its determination. Wampouille also contends it was impossible for him to comply with the terms of the agreement. As the party raising this defense, Wampouille was required to present sufficient evidence to support this contention. The trial court rejected Wampouille's argument.
Evidence supports the trial court's determination.
The trial court rejected Wampouille's argument that the provision was a mutual mistake by the parties and, therefore, there was no agreement. Even assuming arguendo that there was an initial mutual mistake of fact by the parties concerning Wampouille's ability to transfer the TIAA-CREF account into a new account in Sophie's name, which the evidence does not establish, Wampouille did not notify Barnett of this alleged mistake at any time prior to these proceedings. Instead, he made the irrevocable election to purchase the annuity while retaining a reversionary interest. We find no error in the trial court's decision. Wampouille also contends that Barnett was barred by laches from alleging a breach of fiduciary duty.