Opinion ID: 1925651
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reformation of the Agreement

Text: The trial court ordered that the Agreement be reformed in two respects. As written, the Agreement could last indefinitely if each co-owner repeatedly sold her interest to third parties. The Court of Chancery found that the parties intended their Agreement to remain enforceable until the last of the three original owners either died or sold her interest in the property. Accordingly, the trial court reformed the Agreement to express that limitation. The trial court also ordered that the Agreement be reformed to change the joint tenancy with right of survivorship to a tenancy in common. As the trial court explained, [r]eformation of the Agreement in this manner reflects my best effort to capture the contract that the Housemates would have crafted in 1986 had they envisioned the precise circumstances they now confront.... [10] It is settled law that the equitable remedy of reformation may be used to express the `real agreement' of the parties involved. [11] But reformation is not a mandate to produce a reasonable result.... Rather, it is based on intention. [12] With respect to the first reformation  limiting the duration of the Agreement  the record supports the trial court's conclusion that the parties did not intend the Agreement to last beyond their lives. There is no support, however, for the court's second reformation. The trial court found: Consistent with their objectives and close friendship, the Housemates decided, after discussion, to take possession of the Beach House as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. This form of ownership is both recorded in the deed and recited in the Agreement, and reflected their intention that no Housemates' relations or heirs would be entitled to force the remaining two out in the event of someone's death. Rather, if one of the Housemates died, the Beach House would continue to benefit and be used by the survivors. All the Housemates voluntarily and knowingly accepted this decision and signed both the deed and the Agreement that reflected this choice. [13] Given this factual finding, which is supported by the record, there is no basis on which to reform the Agreement by changing the form of ownership from a joint tenancy with right of survivorship to a tenancy in common.