Legal Opinion

Mock v. Mock

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 1, 1985No. 8523SC85PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PHILLIPS, Judge.

While a written instrument may be reformed on the grounds of mutual mistake, the mistake that the law requires is that of both parties to the instrument. Coppersmith v. Aetna Insurance Co., 222 N.C. 14, 21 S.E. 2d 838 (1942). The mistake of one party not induced by the fraud of the other is not enough. Crawford v. Willoughby, 192 N.C. 269, 134 S.E. 494 (1926). In this case no legal grounds for reforming the deed in question have either been pleaded or proved by plaintiffs and the order of summary judgment dismissing their claim was properly entered. Accepting plaintiffs’…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Crawford v. . WilloughbySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  2. W. B. Coppersmith & Sons, Inc. v. Ætna InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  3. Cameron v. CameronCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Financial Services of Raleigh, Inc. v. BarefootCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
  2. Woodring v. SwieterCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
  3. Sudds v. GillianCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API