Opinion ID: 545173
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mutual Mistake and Reformation

Text: 48 As a prerequisite to reformation, Appellees must show by clear and convincing evidence that a mutual mistake was made in the collective bargaining agreement. Royal Aviation, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 770 F.2d 1298, 1302 (5th Cir.1985); Aetna Insurance Co. v. Paddock, 301 F.2d 807, 811 (5th Cir.1962). In a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must evaluate the non-moving party's evidence, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2513, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Caton v. Leach Corp., 896 F.2d 939, 941 (5th Cir.1990); see also Powers v. Nassau Development Corp., 753 F.2d 457, 462 (5th Cir.) (court must evaluate entire record and indulge every reasonable inference in favor of party opposing the motion), clarified, 756 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir.1985). The trial court must determine whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the [non-movant] on the evidence presented. Liberty Lobby, supra, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. at 2512. This evaluation must be made in light of the respective burdens of proof imposed on the parties. Id. In reviewing district court's grant or denial of summary judgment, an appellate court is bound to apply these same standards. Netto v. Amtrak, 863 F.2d 1210, 1212 (5th Cir.1989). 49 Appellees contend that the provision for occupational disability benefits set out in Exhibit C of the collective bargaining agreement was erroneously included as the result of a clerical error, and that neither the UAW nor GBC intended these benefits to be part of the agreement. A brief summary of the factual premises of Appellees' claim is necessary to understand the discussion that follows. 50 Appellee GBC submitted with its summary judgment motion the affidavit of Robert Schmitt, GBC's chief negotiator for the collective bargaining agreement. Schmitt's affidavit states that the Exhibit C provision for occupational disability payments, under which Meza claims, was originally presented as a proposed alternative to the workman's compensation supplement provided for in Article XVI of the agreement. 13 In addition, Schmitt states that the proposal was limited to a maximum benefit period of eight weeks. 14 51 According to Schmitt's affidavit, the Union rejected the proposed alternative and insisted on retention of the Article XVI benefits. When the Union rejected the proposal, Schmitt stated that he wrote the word eliminate next to the Exhibit C provision for occupational disability benefits. 15 Schmitt then submitted his notes to GBC's personnel manager for preparation of the final collective bargaining agreement. The final agreement included the Exhibit C schedule for occupational disability benefits, but not the eight-week limitation. Schmitt conjectures that the personnel manager erroneously interpreted his eliminate notation as referring only to the eight-week limitation, instead of to the entire occupational disability benefit provision. 16 52 The final collective bargaining agreement executed by the parties states in Exhibit C: 53 Part of the collective bargaining agreement and subject to the terms thereof (it being expressly understood, however, that the grievance and arbitration procedures have no application hereto), it is further agreed that ...: 54 .... 55 (d) The employees' group disability income benefit plan shall provide the following maximum weekly benefits: 7/27/81 3/1/82 3/1/83 56 .... 57