Court Opinion

ID: 9514945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:52:37.305245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:23.113762
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in the result).
[¶ 21.] I think the majority opinion errs in stating the issues, causing it to confuse the law even though it eventually reaches the right result.
[¶ 22.] 1. ■ The first issue is whether it was error to deny the motion to amend the complaint. It was, because amendment is liberally permitted unless it is prejudicial. Therefore, the trial court and the majority opinion err here because no prejudice would have resulted from granting the motion.
*741[¶ 23.] 2. The second issue is whether the trial court erred in denying relief to Sejnoha based on mutual mistake of law.
[¶ 24.] The trial court and majority opinion get this one right even though they do it for the wrong reason, i.e., because they denied the motion to amend the pleading, they now say Sejnoha failed to establish a mutual mistake. In other words, they have the cart before the horse, but at least they have them going into the right barn.
[¶25.] 3. The third issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in directing a verdict for City on a claim of fraud. It did not, and I concur in the result of affirmance.