Opinion ID: 26096
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: GeoSouthern's Reformation Claim:

Text: 11 Paragraph 3.2 of the 1991 Agreement provides that GeoSouthern must advise Chesapeake in writing that it proposes to drill on a Horizontal Prospect, and Chesapeake must notify GeoSouthern of its intent to participate in writing . . . not less than fifteen (15) days after receipt of such notice. 12 In October, 1997, GeoSouthern gave Chesapeake notice of a proposal to drill the Victoria Well. Nineteen days later, Chesapeake gave GeoSouthern written notice of its election to participate in the well. GeoSouthern concedes that Chesapeake's election was timely under the literal words of the 1991 agreement, but maintains that the language of the 1991 Agreement was the result of mutual mistake. GeoSouthern seeks reformation of the 1991 Agreement and a declaratory judgment that Chesapeake's response was untimely under the reformed time requirement. The district court refused to reform the 1991 Agreement and declared Chesapeake's response timely thereunder. 13 Generally, an unambiguous contract must be enforced as written, looking at the objective intent as manifested by the language used, rather than interpreting it by attempting to divine the subjective intent of the parties. 11 To obtain reformation of a contract, a party must show that: (1) the parties reached an agreement on a material term, but (2) the written contract does not reflect the parties' agreement because of a mutual mistake. 12 The party seeking reformation has the burden of proving mutual mistake, 13 and must prove the facts and circumstances warranting reformation by clear and convincing evidence. 14 14 In the present action, there is no dispute that Chesapeake's attorney inserted the no less than fifteen days language into an early draft of the 1991 Agreement. The 1991 Agreement was thereafter subject to extensive revision and negotiations. There is no evidence whatsoever that the parties agreed, prior to executing the 1991 Agreement, that a response would be required within fifteen days, nor is there any evidence that Chesapeake understood the no less than language to require a response within fifteen days. Rather, GeoSouthern presented evidence that: (a) its president read and misunderstood the provision to require a response within fifteen days; (b) Chesapeake made subsequent requests that GeoSouthern respond within fifteen days; and (c) a 1997 letter from Chesapeake to GeoSouthern stating, [i]n accordance with our Agreement, Chesapeake will make its election within fifteen days of receipt of such notice. 15 Examining the above evidence, the district court concluded that such evidence, if presented to the court in a bench trial would not cause the Court to find the 'no less than fifteen days' provision in the 1991 [Agreement] was the result of a mutual mistake. We are compelled to agree. GeoSouthern has failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. The above evidence is not subject to factual dispute nor could it be shaped by issues of credibility. The terms of the contract are unambiguous. 15 Our review of the record, parties' briefs, and legal authority, persuades that the trial court properly granted summary judgment denying GeoSouthern's claim for reformation. 16