Opinion ID: 451593
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unilateral Mistake Caused by Inequitable Conduct of the Other Party

Text: 14 McDermott argues alternatively that the District Court should have found that the government's inequitable conduct caused Clark to convey tract 200-1 by mistake. Specifically, McDermott notes that Hairston failed to inform Clark about the overlap and assured him that after the exchange he would own all of tract 100E-1. 15 The District Court found that the government had engaged in no inequitable conduct in its dealings with Clark, i.e., that Hairston's failure to alert Clark to the existence of the overlap was not inequitable. 16 We hold that this finding is not clearly erroneous. Clark never inquired about an overlap, and it cannot be said that the government concealed the overlap from him. Clark was represented by counsel in his dealings with the government and was given maps and descriptions of tracts 200-1 and 100E-1 from which he could have discovered the overlap, had he examined them with care. As the District Court observed, Clark wasn't paying an awful lot of attention in making the land exchange. Trial Transcript at 76. 17 Furthermore, the evidence does not support McDermott's contention that Hairston assured Clark that Clark would receive all of tract 100E-1 after the transfer. During Clark's deposition the following exchange occurred: 18 Q. Mr. Clark, after the exchange with the Government in 1970, did you have complete ownership of all the riverfront land from the northwest corner of your property...? 19 A. That was my understanding. 20 Q. Was that the representations (sic) made to you by the Government people? 21 A. Again, insofar as I understood it, that was, that was the exchange that we made. 22 Clark Deposition at 12-13 (emphasis added). Clark stopped short of saying that the government told him that he would own all of 100E-1 after the exchange. Additionally, at trial McDermott's attorney repeatedly asked Hairston whether he told Clark that Clark would own all of tract 100E-1 after the exchange, and Hairston consistently responded that he told Clark only that the government's easement would be fully released after the exchange. The District Court's finding that the government did not engage in any inequitable conduct cannot be said to be clearly erroneous.