Case Name: Kuchera, Appellant, vs. Kuchera, Respondent
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1920-06-23
Citations: 172 Wis. 108
Docket Number: 
Parties: Kuchera, Appellant, vs. Kuchera, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 172
Pages: 108–113

Head Matter:
Kuchera, Appellant, vs. Kuchera, Respondent.
June 3
June 23, 1920.
Reformation of instruments: Degree of proof required: Definiteness: Appeal: Weight to be given findings of trial court.
1.'Where there is a sharp conflict in the evidence, the findings of the trial judge who saw the witnesses cannot be disturbed on appeal if there is nothing inherently improbable in the existence of the facts found.
2. A deed conveying property to the grantor’s son in consideration of a money payment and a promise to support the grantor for life will not be reformed so as to require the building of a house for the grantor and his wife, where the evidence as to the oral agreement was weak and unsatisfactory and did not specify the kind of house to be built.
Eschweiler, J., dissents.
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Vernon county: E. C. Higbee, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
Action in equity to reform a deed to forty-five acres of land given June 27, 1917, by plaintiff to his son Edward and his wife in consideration of an annual payment of $55 and the support for life of plaintiff and his wife. A like deed to eighty acres was given to his older son, James, the consideration for which, expressed in a .contemporaneous written agreement, was that James should support plaintiff and his wife during' their natural life and pay $3,000 to plaintiff on January 1, 1925, without interest. It is also sought to recover in the action some personal property, including four cows and a team of horses.
In November, -1918, Edward died, and this action is brought against his widow.
Testimony was given upon thé trial in behalf of plaintiff that Edward was to furnish material and build a house for plaintiff and his wife. Some of this testimony shows clearly that James was also to assist in building the house. Plaintiff and his wife have always lived in a home located upon the eighty acres deeded to James. As to the character of the house to be built, the evidence does not disclose any more definitely than that it was to be suitable for plaintiff and his wife. On the part of the defendant the agreement to build a house was denied. As to the issue made by the evidence the court found:
(1) “That up to the time of his death the said Edward Kuchera had made his annual payment of $55 as expressed in said deed of convevance to said plaintiff and had in all things fully performed his part of the contract by him to be performed.
(2) “I find that.the written contract and deeds made and executed as aforesaid on the 27th day of June, 1917, between the parties express the terms of the agreement between the parties concerning the disposition of said real estate. ...
(3) “Concerning the personal property in question, I find that the same belonged to and was the property of Edward Kuchera at the time of his death and that the plaintiff, Joseph Kuchera, has no interest or title thereto and is not entitled to possession thereof.”
From a judgment dismissing the action upon the merits, with costs, the plaintiff appealed.
The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of /. Henry Bennett of Viroqua, and for the respondent on that of C. W. Graves of Viroqua.

Opinion:
Vinje, J.
It would profit neither the parties to the action nor the legal profession to set out and discuss the evidence that resulted in the findings made by the trial court. There was a sharp conflict in the evidence, and, as to the title to the personal property, it would support a finding for plaintiff. But the trial court saw the witnesses, and his conclusion- as to their veracity cannot be disturbed upon appeal since there is nothing inherently improbable in the existence of the facts found.
The case presents no basis for a reformation of the deed so as to call for the building of a house, first, because the evidence is too weak and unsatisfactory to sustain reformation, and second, it is too indefinite because it fails to disclose what kind of a house should be built, either as to kind of material, size, number of rooms, cost, or any other fact that would render specific performance possible. Evidence to sustain a reformation must be clear and satisfactory. Govier v. Brechler, 159 Wis. 157 (149 N. W. 740), and cases cited on page 164. Taking the evidence given by plaintiff as true, the court would have to make essential parts of the contract between them if it attempted to declare what kind of a house should be built. Under such circumstances the court properly refused reformation.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.