Opinion ID: 1590950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: district court's interpretation of contract

Text: The appellants argue that the district court erred in reforming the contract at issue. A court may reform an agreement when there has been either a mutual mistake or a unilateral mistake caused by fraud or inequitable conduct on the part of the party against whom reformation is sought. Twin Towers Dev. v. Butternut Apartments, 257 Neb. 511, 599 N.W.2d 839 (1999). A review of the district court's order, however, reveals that the court did not reform the contract. Instead, the court considered the evidence presented at trial in order to determine whether Livingston was personally liable on the contract. The court's finding that Livingston was not personally liable was not based upon any alleged mistake in the contract, but was instead premised on the conclusion that none of the parties involved in the contract intended to incur personal liability. We conclude that the district court did not reform the contract and that the appellants' second assignment of error is without merit. The appellants' third assignment of error asserts that the district court used extrinsic and parol evidence to add to and vary the terms of a clear and unambiguous contract. The parol evidence rule renders ineffective proof of a prior or contemporaneous oral agreement which alters, varies, or contradicts the terms of a written agreement. Sack Bros. v. Tri-Valley Co-op., 260 Neb. 312, 616 N.W.2d 786 (2000). Our review of the district court's order reveals that the court did not add to and vary the terms of the contract. Instead, the court made a factual determination that Livingston did not intend to be held personally liable on the contract. This determination was made independent of any of the terms of the contract and was based upon the evidence adduced at trial concerning the intent of the parties. Accordingly, we find the appellants' third assignment of error to be without merit.