Opinion ID: 1058892
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scrivener's Error

Text: A condominium is created when a declarant records a condominium instrument. Code § 55-79.45. A declaration of condominium must include, among other things, a legal description by metes and bounds of the land submitted to the condominium regime and a plat showing the location and dimension of submitted lands. Code §§ 55-79.54(a), -79.58(A). If there is no unit owner other than the declarant, the declarant may unilaterally amend the condominium instruments, but if there is any unit owner other than the declarant, the condominium instruments shall be amended only by agreement of unit owners as set forth in Code § 55-79.71(A),(B). The declarant may, however, unilaterally execute and record a corrective amendment or supplement to the condominium instruments to correct ... a scrivener's error, among other things. Code § 55-79.71(F). The LLC argues on appeal that the inclusion of Parcel 1A in the property description and plats incorporated in the condominium instruments was a scrivener's error and thus, it was entitled to amend the Condominium Declaration to correct that error. The Association differentiates between a scrivener's error and other mistakes, contending that Code § 55-79.71(F), allowing declarants to unilaterally correct scriveners' errors, does not apply because the record reflects no cognizable scrivener's error. The correction of a scrivener's error is a court-sanctioned action reforming a contract or other document. We note, however, that a court's role in correcting documents is limited. The rule is well-settled that a court is not permitted to rewrite a document or add terms not included by the parties. See, e.g., Bentley Funding Group, L.L.C. v. SK & R Group, L.L.C., 269 Va. 315, 330, 609 S.E.2d 49, 56 (2005) (court cannot alter the provisions of or add to the plain language of a contract); Jackson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 269 Va. 303, 310, 608 S.E.2d 901, 904 (2005) (court determines the intent of the testator from the plain language of the will and cannot add words to the will). A scrivener's error presents an exception to this general rule, because as the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has observed, scrivener's errors are difficult to prevent, and ... no useful social purpose is served by enforcing ... mistaken term[s]. S.T.S. Transport Service, Inc. v. Volvo White Truck Corp., 766 F.2d 1089, 1093 (7th Cir.1985). Thus, a change to a document because of a scrivener's error presents a significant exception to a well-established rule, so we must construe that term narrowly. See, e.g., Davis v. Mullins, 251 Va. 141, 149, 466 S.E.2d 90, 94 (1996) (A court's authority to correct a clerical error under Code § 8.01-428(B) should be narrowly construed and applied.). Although we have not previously had occasion to examine what constitutes a scrivener's error under Code § 55-79.71(F), we have examined the term and related terms in other contexts. For example, clerical mistakes under Code § 8.01-428(B) may be scrivener's errors. Wellmore Coal Corp. v. Harman Mining Corp., 264 Va. 279, 283, 568 S.E.2d 671, 673 (2002). In Wellmore Coal, we adopted the language of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, noting that scrivener's errors are those which are demonstrably contradicted by all other documents. Id. (citing Zhou v. Zhou, 38 Va.App. 126, 133, 562 S.E.2d 336, 339 (2002)). Examples of such errors include a typographical mistake made by a court reporter in transcribing a trial transcript, counsel's failure to prepare an order for entry by the trial court, and a misstatement on the record by the trial court regarding the length of incarceration a defendant was ordered to serve. Zhou, 38 Va.App. at 133-34, 562 S.E.2d at 339 (citations omitted). Our description of scriveners' errors in Wellmore Coal parallels that of the Illinois Court of Appeals, which defined such errors as those evidenced in the writing that can be proven without parol evidence. Estate of Blakely v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co., 267 Ill.App.3d 100, 203 Ill.Dec. 811, 640 N.E.2d 961, 966 (1994). Scrivener's errors tend to occur singularly; they are not continuous, ongoing, and repeated. Id. The scrivener's error in our recent decision in State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Remley, 270 Va. 209, 221, 618 S.E.2d 316, 322 (2005), fits this description. In Remley, we found that a default judgment against the defendant tortfeasor which listed him as both the plaintiff and the defendant was a scrivener's error as [a] review of the default judgment order ... compels the reader to conclude which of the parties was the plaintiff. Id. See also State v. Rosario, 238 Conn. 380, 680 A.2d 237, 239-41 (1996) (date of events specified in search warrant affidavit were scrivener's errors where the date of the affiant's signature and a police case file number clearly indicated that the operative facts occurred in the current rather than a prior year); Dunton v. Tanigoshi, 47 Cal.App. 231, 190 P. 467 (1920) (notice of hearing which listed the wrong weekday was sufficient because it contained the correct date). In Morgan v. Russrand Triangle Assocs., 270 Va. 21, 26, 613 S.E.2d 589, 591 (2005), we reversed the trial court's judgment that its entry of a final order was a scrivener's error because it actually intended to grant a party's motion to reconsider instead. We noted that [c]haracterizing the signing of the order by the trial judge, and by counsel for both parties, as an oversight or an inadvertent error is inconsistent with the affirmative acts of the trial court and counsel. Not only were all signatories aware that they were signing an order disposing of the merits of the case consistent with the trial court's previous opinion letter, all signatories are charged with the knowledge that an order is entered when signed by the trial judge. Id. Similarly, in Wellmore Coal, 264 Va. at 283, 568 S.E.2d at 673, we held that an attorney's failure to timely sign a document before submitting it to the Court did not constitute a clerical error, which, in that context, was synonymous with a scrivener's error. In M'Mahon v. Spangler, 25 Va. (4 Rand.) 51, 51-52 (1826), a buyer of real estate alleged he agreed to purchase a certain number of acres at a certain price, and that the contract which conveyed to him the seller's right, title, interest and claim in a tract of land in gross, without further specificity, was a scrivener's error. Relying on the contract drafter's testimony that he first made a rough draft of the contract, altering it to suit the views of the parties: that then he wrote it over fair, and read it to them distinctly more than once: that they seemed perfectly satisfied, and executed it[,] this Court held that despite the buyer's attested intention, there was no error by the scrivener in preparing the contract. Id. at 57. The complaint in M'Mahon is very similar to that made here, and the resolution of that case is instructive. As in M'Mahon, a rough draft of the condominium transfer documents including the plat and metes and bounds description was made and tendered to the LLC, whose representative, Mr. Kotarides, and attorney, Ms. White, examined it. Suggestions for corrections were made by them to AES and adopted as changes before a final version was submitted for review, executed and recorded. None of those suggested changes involved removing Parcel 1A from the property submitted to the condominium regime for Westgate. The preparation, review, revision and adoption of the Westgate real estate documents were analogous to those in M'Mahon: the drafter made a rough draft ..., altering it to suit the views of the parties: ... wrote it over fair, ... that they seemed perfectly satisfied, and executed it. 25 Va. at 57. In light of the forgoing, we cannot agree with the trial court's determination that a scrivener's error occurred in this case. The alleged error was neither typographical nor clerical. There was no finding that AES, the scrivener, had transposed a call in the metes and bounds description, recited an erroneous deed book reference or similar error commonly recognized as a scrivener's error. Instead, the trial court specifically found that there was no drafting error, but instead, based its judgment only on the LLC's intent that Parcel 1A should not have been included in the condominium property. The Court further finds that error of including the .978-acre parcel in the condominium description was contrary to the intent of 752 LLC. The error was not in the creation of the plat by the surveyor, but rather its[] use in the description of the property to be subjected to the condominium declaration. The error was in making the [Declaration] contrary to the intent of 752 LLC. (Emphasis added). The trial court's factual finding, to which we accord deference, is that the transaction failed to accurately express the intent of the LLC as declarant of the Condominium Declaration. However, that finding of a factual occurrence does not support a conclusion of law that the occurrence was a scrivener's error cognizable under Code § 55-79.71(F). The trial court found no error in AES' preparation of the real estate descriptions attached to the Condominium Declaration. The error was not in the creation of the plat by the surveyor. Further, there was no finding that the scrivener was directed to exclude Parcel 1A, but nonetheless erroneously wrote it into the property description. Like the real estate contract in M'Mahon, which was submitted, revised with the parties' changes, reviewed again and executed, the fact that a party's intent was not fully reflected cannot be attributed to an error of the scrivener. Instead, the error lies with the party's inattention to the detail before him. Mr. Kotarides, himself, admitted: [He] didn't look at [the property description and plat] carefully enough. The inclusion of Parcel 1A in the condominium was not an inadvertent, singular mistake, easily understood with reference to the remainder of the Condominium Declaration. Rather, all the documents describing the property submitted to the condominium regime showed Parcel 1A as part of that property. Further, the mistake was borne out in successive documents. The marketing brochures and the public offering statement contained the same information, went through the same review process and were also approved by Mr. Kotarides. The error in this case was not that of the scrivener's transcription of the real estate description, but in the review process of the parties. Construing the term narrowly, as we must, we find there was no error by the scrivener, AES, in the transcription of the document. Accordingly, there was no scrivener's error under Code § 55-79.71(F), which permitted the LLC to record the Correction Amendment. The trial court thus erred in concluding otherwise and awarding judgment for the LLC and Richardson.