Opinion ID: 2516976
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ritchie proved mutual mistake by clear and convincing evidence.

Text: A party urging reformation must establish the elements of reformation by clear and convincing evidence. [38] Wasser argues that Ritchie failed to meet this high burden of proof for the extraordinary relief of reformation. In support, Wasser reiterates the arguments discussed above. It argues that there was a question of fact as to whether the parties intended to pay senior lien holders before paying Wasser. It also argues that the mistake was the result of Ritchie's inaccurate lien search and that the burden of additional liens should therefore fall on Ritchie. The superior court did not state in its opinion the standard of proof it applied to Ritchie's reformation argument. A superior court does not need to explicitly state the standard of proof it is applying if there is no dispute about the applicable standard. [39] We will normally assume that the superior court has applied the correct standard. [40] There is no indication the superior court applied an incorrect standard. The superior court noted that [r]escission is another remedy available when the defense of mutual mistake is argued. A party seeking to rescind a contract on the basis of mutual mistake must show by clear and convincing evidence that the agreement should be set aside. Because the superior court correctly acknowledged that mutual mistake must be shown by clear and convincing evidence in the context of rescission, because Wasser asserted below that the clear and convincing standard applied to reformation, and because Ritchie never asserted that any other standard applied to reformation, we conclude that the superior court understood that mutual mistake must be shown by clear and convincing evidence in the context of reformation as well. From this we can safely assume the superior court recognized and applied the correct standard. Therefore, the superior court did not err in granting reformation. Wasser additionally argues that the superior court erred in determining that net proceeds was limited to sale of those items of Thomas's equipment in which Wasser held a security interest. Because we hold that the contract was properly reformed, there are no proceeds from the other equipment available to pay Wasser; we therefore do not need to address this issue.