Barry E. Moore and Deborah E. Moore - Page 40




                                       - 40 -                                         
          Memo. 1997-302 (issue of whether decedent’s conveyance with                 
          respect to her Atlanta, Georgia, residence to her children could            
          be reformed to carry out her actual intention to convey a life              
          estate rather than the fee simple interest mistakenly specified             
          in the conveyance governed by Georgia law), we disagree that the            
          effective date provision was a drafting error or mistake subject            
          to reformation under Georgia law.                                           
               Ga. Code Ann. sec. 23-2-21 (1982) provides as follows:                 
               What mistakes relievable in equity; power to relieve to be             
               exercised cautiously.                                                  
                    (a) A mistake relievable in equity is some                        
               unintentional act, omission, or error arising from                     
               ignorance, surprise, imposition, or misplaced confidence.              
                    (b) Mistakes may be either of law or of fact.                     
                    (c) The power to relieve mistakes shall be exercised              
               with caution; to justify it, the evidence shall be clear,              
               unequivocal, and decisive as to the mistake.                           
               Ga. Code Ann. sec. 23-2-31 (1982) provides, in pertinent               
          part:  “Equity will not reform a written contract unless the                
          mistake is shown to be the mistake of both parties”.  See also              
          Cox v. Smith, 260 S.E.2d 310, 312-313 (Ga. 1979) (“A ‘mutual                
          mistake’ in an action for reformation means one in which both               
          parties had agreed on the terms of the contract, but by mistake             
          of the scrivener the true terms of the agreement were not set               
          forth.”); Prince v. Friedman, 42 S.E.2d 434, 436 (Ga. 1947)                 
          (“jurisdiction [to reform a contract in equity for mutual                   








Page:  Previous  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007