Opinion ID: 1616952
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Buyer's Request for Reformation.

Text: The buyer in its brief alternatively requests that if extrinsic evidence was properly considered, then the exhibit B hand-written memorandum should now be reformed because all parties were mistaken when they believed the land taxes were in fact prepaid. At the outset, however, we note the buyer's concession in its brief that it did not seek reformation of the contract at any time during the proceedings in the trial court. Neither did it contend at any time during the trial that either the written contract or the exhibit B memorandum initialed by the parties was the product of a mutual mistake. It is axiomatic that we will not ordinarily consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Davoren v. Iowa Employment Security Commission, 277 N.W.2d 602, 603 (Iowa 1979); Lemon v. City of Muscatine, 272 N.W.2d 429, 430 (Iowa 1978). The request for reformation is not properly before us because it is based on a theory of mutual mistake which was not presented to the trial court.