Equitable Reformation of Trust in Texas

What Is an Equitable Reformation of Trust?

Background

“The law presumes that a written agreement correctly embodies the parties' intentions, and is an accurate expression of the agreement the parties reached in prior oral negotiations." (See Estes v. Republic Nat'l Bank of Dallas (1970) 462 S.W.2d 273, 275; Thobani v. Mithani, No. 05-15-00270-CV, at *4 (Tex. App. July 6, 2016).)

“The underlying objective of reformation is to correct a mutual mistake made in preparing a written instrument, so that the instrument truly reflects the original agreement of the parties.” (See Bollner v. Plastics Solutions of Texas (2008) 270 S.W.3d 157, 169.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Reformation requires two elements: (1) an original agreement and (2) a mutual mistake made after the original agreement in reducing the original agreement to writing." (See In re Gonzales (2019) 580 S.W.3d 322, 330.)

"A court is without power to make a contract that the parties did not make; an actual agreement reached prior to the drafting of the instrument involved is a requisite to an action for reformation." (See id; Cherokee Water Co. v. Forderhause (1987) 741 S.W.2d 377, 379.)

"The mistake may be shown by parol evidence. [A]lthough a mutual mistake of the parties is required in most instances, if a settlor of a trust receives no consideration for the creation of the trust, a unilateral mistake ... is sufficient." (See In re Gonzales (2019) 580 S.W.3d 322, 330.)

"Any mistake of the scrivener which could defeat the true intention may be corrected in equity by reformation, whether the mistake is one of fact or law.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“We review a summary judgment de novo.” (See Harkins v. Wal-Mart Stores Tex., LLC, No. 02-21-00201-CV, at *9 (Tex. App. June 23, 2022).)

“The movant for summary judgment has the burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (See Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co. (1985) 690 S.W.2d 546, 548; Powell v. Foxall (2001) 65 S.W.3d 756, 758.)

“In deciding whether a disputed material fact issue precludes summary judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant is taken as true.” (See id.)

“Every reasonable inference in favor of the non-movant is indulged and any doubts are resolved in its favor.” (See id.)

“The movant must either disprove at least one element of each of plaintiff's theories of recovery or conclusively establish each essential element of an affirmative defense.” (See City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth. (1979) 589 S.W.2d 671, 678; Powell v. Foxall (2001) 65 S.W.3d 756, 758.)

“If the movant conclusively proves all essential elements of his defense, the burden shifts to the non-movant.” (See Powell v. Foxall (2001) 65 S.W.3d 756, 758.)

“The non-movant must answer that affirmative defense for summary judgment purposes.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “a mutual mistake is generally established from all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the parties and the execution of the instrument." (See Thobani v. Mithani, No. 05-15-00270-CV, at *4 (Tex. App. July 6, 2016).)

It is also well settled that “the party seeking reformation must show more than that the agreement varies from the terms to which the parties orally agreed. He must show also show that the terms were placed in the writing by mutual mistake.” (See id.)

Documents for Equitable Reformation of Trust in Texas

Sort By

J KELLY GRAY vs. DOMINION HARBOR ENTERPRISES LLC document preview

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON AND NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -…

2 pages

FILED 6/16/2023 11:38 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK …