Opinion ID: 2623510
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Deed Construction Versus Reformation

Text: ¶ 40 The Partnership contends that in the context of a reformation claim, it is inappropriate to apply the rules of deed construction. We find this argument unpersuasive. Whereas a reformation action is an action in equity, deed construction is a proceeding in law. Hartman v. Potter, 596 P.2d 653, 656 (Utah 1979) (In the absence of ambiguity, the construction of deeds is a question of law for the court....). In an action to construe a deed, the court will determine the parties' intent from the plain language of the four corners of the deed. Ault v. Holden, 2002 UT 33, ¶ 38, 44 P.3d 781. A court may also look to extrinsic evidence if the deed is ambiguous. 23 Am. Jur.2d Deeds § 192 (2001) (Extrinsic evidence is admissible to illuminate the intent of the parties if the terms of a deed are ambiguous.). ¶ 41 Some property disputes may be resolved through either a construction or a reformation analysis. See, e.g., Knutson v. Reichel, 10 Wash.App. 293, 518 P.2d 233, 236 (1973) (While the trial court considered the problem as one of ambiguity warranting reformation of the deed, and we have viewed it as one of construction, the result is the same.). Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that deed construction is distinct from deed reformation. Williams v. Oldroyd, 581 P.2d 561, 563 (Utah 1978) (Applying rules of construction, however, does not constitute reformation of a deed.); Doman v. Brogan, 405 Pa.Super. 254, 592 A.2d 104, 109 n. 6 (1991) (Deed `construction' should not be confused with deed `reformation,' whereby a Court of Equity might rewrite the written word based on clear, precise and indubitable evidence of mutual mistake or fraud.). Recognizing the distinction between the two claims is important because a court of law's ability to construe a deed is more limited than a court of equity's ability to reform a deed. In construction cases, a court is limited to interpreting only the language contained in the deed. See Park v. Wilkinson, 21 Utah 279, 60 P. 945, 946 (1900) (The words used in the deed should be construed so as to ascertain the intention of the parties making it.); Padilla v. City of Santa Fe, 107 N.M. 107, 753 P.2d 353, 356 (Ct.App.1988) (A court may not, in effect, reform a deed when attempting to interpret or construe it.); Cont'l Oil Co. v. Doornbos, 402 S.W.2d 879, 882 (Tex.1966) (reversing the trial court's insertion of a term not originally included in a deed because under guise of seeking a construction of the deed ..., the plaintiffs were actually seeking, and the judgment actually grants, reformation of the deed). In a reformation proceeding, however, a court of equity has the authority to add new terms to a deed or alter the original language of a deed to conform to the parties' intent. See, e.g., Hottinger, 684 P.2d at 1273 (reforming a property description to describe a boundary that was not contained in the original description). ¶ 42 Appealing to this distinction between reformation and construction, the Partnership argues that the rules of construction are inapplicable to a reformation claim. However, while a court may not reform a deed under the guise of deed construction, there is no analogous limitation on applying the rules of construction in a reformation claim. The controlling consideration in a reformation claim is the intent of the parties. Losee, 235 P.2d at 137. The rules of construction are time-proven principles and presumptions that courts have developed to assist in extrapolating the intent of the parties from a document. See Chournos v. D'Agnillo, 642 P.2d 710, 712 (Utah 1982) (The paramount rule of construction of deeds is to give effect to the intent of the parties ... as expressed in the deed as a whole.); 23 Am.Jur.2d Deeds § 192 (When, and only when, the meaning of a deed is not clear, or is ambiguous or uncertain, will a court resort to established rules of construction to aid in the ascertainment of the grantor's intention .... citations omitted). Because the rules of construction assist in ascertaining the intent of the parties, their consideration is relevant and permissible in a reformation claim. See, e.g., Lentini v. Hager, 47 Northumb. L.J 200, 73 Pa. D. & C.2d 71 (1975) (applying rules of deed construction in a proceeding in equity to reform a deed). If we were to adopt the rule that the Partnership encourages, we would limit the court's ability to look to and interpret the most valuable piece of evidence of the parties' intent: the conveying instrument itself. Thus, we see no reason why the application of the rules of construction should be prohibited in a reformation claim as the Partnership contends.