Court Opinion

ID: 9595392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:39:46.65402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:39.050678
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(dissenting):
There are two major obstacles to my voting to affirm the judgment.
First, the only way that the 1963 deed could be reformed to include a reservation of mineral rights would be to prove a mutual mistake of fact by clear and convincing evidence. The evidence on that matter consists to a large extent of the testimony of Mr. Max Gardner, who was a personal friend and acted as real estate broker for the grantors, William and Bertha Ralphs. It contained considerable hearsay as to what Mr. Carl Bennett, who it is said represented K. C. Ranches, Inc., and William *908A. and Bertha Ralphs, said and what they intended concerning' the transaction. It seems to be conceded (and it must be) that this testimony is hearsay; and I do not see that it comes under any exception to the hearsay rule.
It is nowhere pointed out, nor do I find any answer, to this charge in the appellants’ brief:
Without this improper and hearsay evidence of Max Gardner, there is really nothing in the record to substantiate a mistake, or [to show] that it was in fact the intention of William and Bertha Ralphs to reserve the minerals in their deed to K. C. Ranches of August 13, 1963.
It is true that considerable latitude must be allowed to the trial court in determining whether he believes the evidence is clear and convincing. But if he admits incompetent evidence over objection, how is a reviewing court to tell whether he was convinced by the incompetent evidence, or by whatever competent evidence there may be to support the finding ? This is especially true here in view of the paucity of proof, other than the incompetent evidence, to support the finding of mistake.
Second, despite the defendants’ contention that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the end of the escrow and the deed was released in 1970, the real test is knowledge. That is, the statute of limitations begins to run against a party claiming mistake when he knows, or when he learns of the facts which he contends constitute the mistake.1 The generally accepted rule, which has a sound basis in reason and experience, is that a grantor is presumed to have knowledge of the contents of the deed he executes, unless it is shown that the grantee is guilty of some misrepresentation, concealment or deceit as to its contents.2 No claim has been made here that the original grantees, the Swains, so misled or deceived the Ralphs when the latter executed the deed in 1963. Therefore, I do not perceive why the statute did not then begin to run against the Ralphs (and their successors in interest who stand in their shoes) at that time, almost ten years before this action was commenced.
In accordance with what has been said above, I am unable to see justification for affirming the decree reforming the deed. Alternatively, there should at the very least be a new trial excluding the incompetent testimony, and have a determination of the issue solely on competent evidence: whether it is clear and convincing that there was a mistake made in the deed.
HENRIOD, C. J., concurs in the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of CROCKETT, J.

. Section 78-12-26, U.C.A.1953, states: “Within three years: . . . (3) An action for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake; but the cause of action shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.”

. McKellar v. McKellar, 23 Utah 2d 106, 458 P.2d 867 (1969); Hjermstad v. Barkuloo, 128 Mont. 88, 270 P.2d 1112 (1954).