Deeds. Error is not ambiguity. Elements of reformation not proved.

Brault v. Welch, 2014 VT 44 (16-May-2014)

SKOGLUND, J. Plaintiffs Brault appeal from the trial court’s order granting judgment to defendant in this dispute over a right-of-way. The Braults argue that the court should have found an ambiguity in the description of the right-of-way because it was a simple scrivener’s error that misstated which side of the wall the easement is on. We affirm.

The language of the deed is not ambiguous. The Braults would read the word “southerly” to mean “northerly.” This does not comport with the deed’s plain language. The fact that the grantor may not have owned the land southerly of the block wall does not render the language at issue ambiguous. Because this language is unambiguous, it must be enforced as written.

Even if the circumstances surrounding the grant of the easement created some initial ambiguity as to the language employed, the “construction” offered by the Braults requires the Court to rewrite, rather than merely construe, the words of the deed. Specifically, it demands that the Court insert the word “northerly” in place of the word “southerly.” A result so at odds with the actual language of a deed is rightly accomplished through the remedy of reformation.

Deed reformation is appropriate where, through mistake, language does “not represent the actual conveyance intended by the parties” The Braults cannot meet the necessary standard of proof because they failed to introduce evidence regarding the circumstances of the drafting of the deed. There was no evidence to explain the sellers’ understanding of boundary lines. There was no evidence to show what circumstances led to the use of the word “southerly thereof” in the deed, and no evidence of a prior agreement between the parties concerning the easement. Therefore, there was no basis on which the court could reform the deed.