Opinion ID: 1713173
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Chancellor Erred by Reforming the Contract

Text: ¶ 21. We recognize that a valid contract may be reformed in some instances where a mistake has been made. Allison v. Allison, 203 Miss. 15, 20, 33 So.2d 289, 291 (1948). The general rule in this state and elsewhere is that reformation of a contract is justified only (1) if the mistake is a mutual one, or (2) where there is a mistake on the part of one party and fraud or inequitable conduct on the part of the other. However, [t]he mistake that will justify a reformation must be in the drafting of the instrument, not in the making of the contract. Johnson v. Consolidated Amer. Life Ins. Co., 244 So.2d 400, 402 (Miss.1971). ¶ 22. In this case, neither side claims that the mistake is due to a scrivener's error. In fact, the divorce agreement states exactly what the parties contracted to do, including how to divide the joint real property, living arrangements, Herb's responsibility to pay the mortgage on the marital home, and periodic alimony. No language is present in the divorce agreement regarding the tax consequences of any of the provisions. Leigh and Herb each testified that they did not know the tax consequences of their divorce agreement when the contract was entered into. From this, we can assume that no mistake was made in the drafting of the agreement. Therefore, the mistake is one in the making of the contract which is not a basis for reformation under Mississippi law. Accordingly, we find that the chancellor erred by reforming the parties' divorce agreement.