Harold Spitzer, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Neil R. Bartelson and Delila Bartelson, Defendants and Appellees (North Dakota 2009)

Summary

The court affirmed dismissal of Harold Spitzer's claim to reform a quitclaim deed to reserve mineral interests. It held that parol evidence was admissible in a reformation action to determine the parties' actual intent and that the challenged testimony was also admissible under the state-of-mind hearsay exception. The court further held that the district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that Spitzer failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a mutual mistake caused the omission of the mineral reservation.

Holding

Parol evidence in a reformation action. The parol evidence rule did not bar testimony about the parties' intent because parol evidence is admissible in an action to reform a written instrument for fraud or mutual mistake.

Hearsay objections to testimony concerning intent. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the challenged testimony. The repeated statement concerning Hattie's intention was admissible to show her then-existing state of mind, and the witnesses' testimony about their own understandings did not constitute hearsay because it did not repeat out-of-court statements.

Proof of mutual mistake supporting reformation. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Spitzer failed to establish a mutual mistake sufficient to reform the quitclaim deed.

Summary

Holding

Cited by