Holt v. Holt

Citations

• 120 Cal. 67
• 52 P. 119
• 1898 Cal. LEXIS 712

Syllabus

<p>Reformation of Deed—Mistake—Pleading—Variance.—In an action to reform a conveyance which by mistake conveyed the whole of a certain lot instead of the undivided half thereof, as intended, where the complaint, though averring a mutual mistake of the grantor and grantee, also averred that the defendant knew at the time of accepting the deed that the plaintiff also supposed that the deed described and conveyed only the undivided half of the property, the last averment brought the case within section 3399 of the Civil Code and justified a reformation of the deed; and where the evidence showed and the court found that, at the time of the acceptance and record of the deed, the grantee knew that the deed conveyed the whole lot and that the grantor supposed that the deed conveyed only the undivided one-half of the lot, and that the language of the deed conveying the whole lot was a mistake, there is no substantial or material variance, which could mislead the defendant to his prejudice, between the complaint and the findings and proof.</p> <p>Id.—Conveyance Provided for in Decree of Divorce—Rights of Parties to Decree Unaffected by Reformation.—Where the purpose of the action and the effect of the judgment was merely to reform a deed made from the defendant to the plaintiff, the effect of a decree of divorce between plaintiff and defendant regulating the rights of the parties in a homestead, and providing for a conveyance from the divorced husband to the divorced wife of an undivided half thereof, is not involved, and none of the rights of the parties under such decree of divorce are determined or affected, by the judgment reforming the deed; and, where the defendant in her answer claimed the whole of the property, she cannot complain of a judgment giving her an undivided half thereof.</p>