Opinion ID: 1125693
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Appleton-Aja Claims.

Text: The Ajas argue that summary judgment in favor of the Appletons and against them was improper because both Mrs. Appleton (who was a real estate broker) and Mr. Weishaupt, the Appletons' broker, were negligent in failing to detect the error in the deed prior to recordation. This position is without merit under the facts presented. While there is authority that the negligence of a party who seeks reformation may bar him from that remedy, such cases hold that the negligence must result in detriment to the other party. See Blake v. Black Bear Coal Co., 145 Ky. 788, 141 S.W. 403 (1911); Tuloma Pipe & Supply Co. v. Townsend, 182 Okl. 321, 77 P.2d 535 (1938). Further, it has been repeatedly held that the failure of a party to detect a faulty description in an instrument is not sufficient negligence to preclude reformation. Good v. Lindstrom, 80 Cal. App.2d 476, 181 P.2d 933 (1947); Mills v. Schulba, 95 Cal. App.2d 559, 213 P.2d 408 (1950); Lister v. Sorge, 260 Cal. App.2d 333, 67 Cal. Rptr. 63 (1968); Maland v. Houston Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 274 F.2d 299 (9th Cir.1960); Taylor v. Lindenmann, 211 Iowa 1122, 235 N.W. 310 (1931); Annot., 81 A.L.R.2d 7 (1962); Restatement of Contracts §§ 504, 508 (1932). Our court has spoken on the issue in Roberts v. Hummel, 69 Nev. 154, 158, 243 P.2d 248, 250 (1952): It cannot be questioned at this late date that a court with equity powers (the district courts of this state have such powers) may reform a written instrument where it appears that there has been fraud, accident or mistake which has brought about a writing not truly representing the actual agreement of the parties. Further, in Lattin v. Gray, 75 Nev. 128, 335 P.2d 778 (1959), the plaintiff who sought reformation had erred in that both the escrow instructions and the deed to the grantee had misdescribed the property and conveyed more than was intended. Although it was apparent that the grantor was negligent in failing to detect the misdescription (as is true in all reformation cases of this type), the court nevertheless held that reformation was proper even as to two subsequent grantees who took with notice of the mistake. See also Ray v. Robertson, 55 Nev. 397, 36 P.2d 76 (1934); Wainwright v. Dunseath, 46 Nev. 361, 211 P. 1104 (1923); Wilson v. Wilson, 23 Nev. 267, 45 P. 1009 (1896). Summary judgment in favor of the Appletons and against the Ajas was proper in the instant case. Mutual mistake was admitted. Under the weight of authority there was no negligence on the part of the Appletons as a matter of law, and they were entitled to reformation of their deed.