Court Opinion

ID: 9783698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:02:26.372223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:33.519828
License: Public Domain

COMBS, Judge,
Concurring:
This is a case in which the intent of the parties appears to be clearly implied by the facts and economic realities involved. Apparently, reformation of the recorded instruments because of a scrivener’s error *290would seem to be a proper resolution of the matter. And we are barred from decreeing that resolution.
As the majority opinion has ably reasoned, equity cannot be invoked to order a reformation of the instruments (ie., the mortgage books) because Kentucky case law has taken the “doctrine of scrivener’s error” one step beyond the definition cited above from American Jurisprudence. The principal case on point, Abney v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 215 S.W.3d 699 (Ky.2006), mandates a showing of “clear and convincing evidence” of mutual mistake before a court can order reformation of an instrument.
This Court has refrained from exercising or usurping the proper function of the trial court in ascertaining that requisite “clear and convincing evidence.” As duly noted by our majority opinion, the affidavit of Ms. Fach was not a sufficiently reliable evidentiary basis upon which we could resolve this prolonged controversy. Thus, we have vacated the order of summary judgment for the parties to have the opportunity to clarify by adequate discovery the matters of fact set forth in her affidavit.
It may or may not be that the outcome will differ from the original judgment. But this is a classic example of the necessary restraint that an appellate court is compelled to exercise pursuant to the rule of civil procedure.
Parenthetically, alluding to the Civil Rules, I would note that the issue of the timeliness of filing the appeal in this case highlights the need for our Supreme Court to re-draft CR 77.04(4) in order to bring it into compliance and harmony with its holding in Kurtsinger v. Board of Trustees of Kentucky Retirement Systems, 90 S.W.3d 454 (Ky.2002). This issue should not have to be re-litigated needlessly as it had to be in this case.