Summary 2010 WY 77

Summary of Decision issued June 15, 2010

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Sanders v. Sanders

Citation: 2010 WY 77

Docket Number: S-09-0238

Appeal from the District Court of Goshen County, the Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge.

Representing Thomas Sanders: Don W. Riske and James R. Salisbury of Riske, Salisbury & Kelly, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Shirley and Daniel Sanders: John J. Maier of John Maier Law Offices, Torrington, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Thomas Leroy Sanders (Leroy) was named as a joint tenant with right of survivorship on two Goshen County deeds. The other joint tenants, Shirley and Daniel Sanders brought a reformation action to have Leroy removed from the deeds. The dispositive issue is whether the district court’s order for reformation of the deeds was supported by sufficient evidence and in accordance with Wyoming law.
Shirley operates a farm and ranch enterprise in Goshen County and is the father of Leroy and Daniel. In 1995, Shirley’s mother decided to sell property (Parcel 1) to Shirley under an installment contract. When Shirley and his mother went to execute the documents, Shirley asked for Leroy’s name to be added to the deed with a right of survivorship to protect Parcel 1 from his wife from whom he was estranged. Also as part of his estate planning, Shirley wanted the property to pass to Leroy without going through probate. (Shirley’s attorney advised against adding Leroy as a joint tenant.) Leroy signed the mortgage but Shirley remained solely liable on the promissory note. In 1998, Parcel 2 became available for purchase. Shirley’s father had set aside money to finance the purchase. When the father died, Shirley’s mother gifted the funds to Shirley, Daniel, Leroy and Leroy’s wife to purchase the property. Shirley, Daniel and Leroy were named to Parcel 2 as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Shirley and Leroy farmed together until a dispute arose resulting in the First Case in 2002. Leroy asserted that he had a present possessory interest in Parcels 1 and 2. Leroy moved to dismiss the case shortly before trial. The district court dismissed with prejudice Leroy’s claims alleging present ownership interest in or rights to possession, use or control and any right or claim to partition. Leroy continued to assert that he had the right to a present possessory interest in the properties. In 2007, Shirley and Daniel filed a complaint seeking reformation by removing Leroy as a joint tenant. The district court denied Leroy’s motion for summary judgment ruling that its order in the First Case was binding in the current action and that res judicata prohibited Leroy from claiming any present interest in the property. After the bench trial, the district court ordered reformation of the deeds by removing Leroy as a grantee without any mention of a future interest.
In order for the remedy of reformation to be available, the evidence must establish that a mistake occurred in the drafting of the instrument, rather than in the reaching of the antecedent agreement. Shirley’s own testimony confirmed there was no drafting or “word processing” error. Mutual mistake is shown only if the instrument is intended to evidence a prior agreement and does not do so. The record clearly showed that the parties intended for Leroy to be included on the deeds as a joint tenant with right of survivorship. The evidence does not demonstrate that Shirley intended for the other aspects of his agreement with Leroy be included in the deeds. The evidence supports the existence of a separate oral agreement giving Shirley the right of sole possession during his lifetime. A joint tenancy typically allows each joint tenant full possession of the property at all times, however, the intent of the parties is paramount.

Conclusion: Leroy did not challenge the district court’s findings as to the terms of the oral agreement between his father and him and the Court concluded the findings were not clearly erroneous. In fact, the record contained evidence that when Shirley wanted to transfer other jointly held property, Leroy signed the transfer documents. This was not a proper case for reformation because the evidence did not establish that the parties made a mistake in drafting the deeds.

Reversed.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/23a44o5 .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]