-14-
Commissioner, supra; Dodge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1968-238;
see also Dodge v. United States, 413 F.2d at 1243.
Under Georgia law, equity may intervene and reform a
conveyance when the instrument fails to express accurately the
intention of the parties. Ga. Code Ann. sec. 23-2-25, 23-2-30
(1982); Curry v. Curry, 473 S.E.2d 760, 761 (Ga. 1996); Fox v.
Washburn, 449 S.E.2d 513, 514 (Ga. 1994); Sheldon v. Hargrose,
100 S.E.2d 898, 900 (Ga. 1957); McCollum v. Loveless, 200 S.E.
115, 117 (Ga. 1938). Reformation as applied to a contract is a
remedy cognizable in equity for the purpose of correcting an
instrument so as to make it express the true intention of the
parties, where from some cause, such as fraud, accident, or
mistake, it does not express such intention. The remedy is not
available for the purpose of making a new and different contract
for the parties, but is confined to establishment of the actual
agreement. Cotton Sales Mut. Ins. Co. v. Woodruff, 451 S.E.2d
106, 107 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). The cause of the defect is
immaterial so long as the mistake is common to both parties to
the transaction. Curry v. Curry, supra; Sheldon v. Hargrose,
supra. A petition for reformation will lie where by mistake of
the scrivener and by oversight of the parties, the writing does
not embody or fully express the real contract of the parties.
Curry v. Curry, supra; McLoon v. McLoon, 136 S.E.2d 740 (Ga.
1964). In order to justify relief in equity to a party claiming
mistake, the evidence must be clear, unequivocal, and decisive as
to the mistake. Scurry v. Cook, 59 S.E.2d 371 (Ga. 1950). The
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011