Gray v. Gray

Utah Supreme Court

Gray v. Gray

160 P.2d 432, 108 Utah 388, 1945 Utah LEXIS 130

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedJune 29, 1945

DocketNo. 6805.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 160 P.2d 432 (Gray v. Gray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gray v. Gray, 160 P.2d 432, 108 Utah 388, 1945 Utah LEXIS 130 (Utah 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

LARSON, Chief Justice.

This is a suit to reform a certain quitclaim deed from plaintiff to defendant, whereby plaintiff conveyed certain *389 property located in Provo, Utah. It is now alleged that through a mutual mistake, the deed conveyed all of the plaintiff’s interest in the property, instead of the one-half interest which should have been conveyed. On the trial the court found the issues in favor of plaintiff, and ordered the deed reformed to convey an undivided one-half interest to defendant, and plaintiff to retain the other half interest. From this judgment defendant appeals. To cancel or reform a deed, the evidence of the mistake must not. only preponderate, but must be clear and convincing.

But one question is presented to this court: Is the evidence sufficient to sustain the finding of the trial court that there was a mistake of fact in making the deed it being intended to convey a one-half interest only?

We have examined the record and considered the evidence, as we may do in an equity case, and nothing will be gained by setting forth a detailed summary of the evidence. Suffice it to say that the record by clear and convincing evidence sustains the findings of the trial court, and the judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed. Costs to respondent.

McDonough, turner, wade, and wolfe, jj., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LARSON, Chief Justice.

This is a suit to reform a certain quitclaim deed from plaintiff to defendant, whereby plaintiff conveyed certain *389 property located in Provo, Utah. It is now alleged that through a mutual mistake, the deed conveyed all of the plaintiff’s interest in the property, instead of the one-half interest which should have been conveyed. On the trial the court found the issues in favor of plaintiff, and ordered the deed reformed to convey an undivided one-half interest to defendant, and plaintiff to retain the other half interest. From this judgment defendant appeals. To cancel or reform a deed, the evidence of the mistake must not. only preponderate, but must be clear and convincing.

But one question is presented to this court: Is the evidence sufficient to sustain the finding of the trial court that there was a mistake of fact in making the deed it being intended to convey a one-half interest only?

We have examined the record and considered the evidence, as we may do in an equity case, and nothing will be gained by setting forth a detailed summary of the evidence. Suffice it to say that the record by clear and convincing evidence sustains the findings of the trial court, and the judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed. Costs to respondent.

McDonough, turner, wade, and wolfe, jj., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 P.2d 432, 108 Utah 388, 1945 Utah LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-gray-utah-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack