Court Opinion

ID: 7819330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:48:17.478383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:41.756950
License: Public Domain

Carleton Harris, Chief Justice, dissenting. I cannot agree with the conclusions reached by the majority. In the first place, in my view, the chancellor decided the case on an erroneous premise. He stated, “The cases seem to hold that the proof required for reformation must be such that there is no possibility of error [my emphasis] in the decision,” and cited the case of Mitchell v. Martindill, 209 Ark. 66, 189 S.W. 2d 662. The language referred to is a quote from the earlier case of Sewell v. Umsted, 169 Ark. 1102, 278 S.W. 36, and reads: “The authorities all required that the parol evidence of the mistake, and of the alleged modification, must be most clear and convincing, ... or else the mistake must be admitted by the opposite party; the resulting proof must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Courts of equity do not grant the high remedy of reformation upon a probability, nor even upon a mere preponderance of the evidence, but only upon a certainty of the error.” To me, this is no more than saying that the evidence must be clear, cogent, and convincing, which is what practically all of our cases hold, though some use the reasonable doubt language. Certainly, I do not agree that the case can be construed as saying that the proof must be such that there is no possibility of error. In my view, the evidence was clear, cogent, and convincing, and I do not depend upon the fact that two witnesses testified as to the transaction on behalf of appellants, while only appellee Faber Wilson testified on behalf of appellees. Of course, this portion of the evidence was a “swearing match,” Faber Wilson testifying that he told Sims and Hefner that the east line of the property did not clear the building, and Sims and Hefner testifying that Wilson did not tell them that the east line severed a portion of the building. Therefore, considering this testimony a “stand-off”, I think the balance of the evidence, and the conclusions to be drawn therefrom bring appellants’ evidence to the required status of being clear, cogent, and convincing. The testimony is undisputed that appellants had full use of the entire building, painted the exterior after acquiring title in August, 1970, and had the interior renovated and adapted to their use as a day care center; also enjoying the full use of the circle drive until subsequently halted by Wilson. I consider it incredible that one would purchase land which conveyed only a portion of a building situated on the premises, and which was to be used daily. Not only that, I consider it so unusual, that I believe a prudent seller, who was attempting to reserve a portion of a building, would spell out such reservation clearly and unequivocally. That, of course, was not done. Of even more significance to me is the fact that appellees, approximately a month after this litigation was instituted by appellants, conveyed the residue of their property constituting a homesite to Dr. James Smith Garrison, subsequently made a party defendant by appellants. The warranty deed from the Wilsons to Garrison excluded the area in dispute in this litigation, but on the same day, the Wilsons gave Dr. Garrison a quitclaim deed to the disputed area. It is significant to me that the Wilsons were unwilling to warrant the title to the disputed property, and even more interesting is the reason Mr. Wilson gave for giving two deeds. He said he "didn’t want Doc Garrison involved in it, and that’s the reason I gave it.” I suggest that a more likely reason would be that he felt that he did not have title to the disputed area, and not wanting to become liable to Garrison, executed only a quitclaim deed. In my judgment, the decree should be reversed.