Korsgaard v. Elliott

3 Citing cases

  1. Shelor v. Witt

    387 N.E.2d 18 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979)   Cited 3 times

    • 1-3 The rules with respect to the reformation of instruments, based upon mistakes of fact, are well settled. As this court said in Korsgaard v. Elliott (3d Dist. 1974), 17 Ill. App.3d 1061, 1063, 309 N.E.2d 263: "A court of equity will reform a deed upon the ground of mistake of fact, mutual and common to the parties and in existence at the time of execution of the instrument showing the parties intended one thing and by mistake expressed another.

  2. Harris, N.A. v. Sauk Vill. Dev., LLC

    2012 Ill. App. 120817 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 6 times

    Although the deed described the entire 46 acres owned by CTLT, the front of the deed and the sales contract clearly showed an intent to transfer only approximately 17 acres. As support, CTLT cites David v. Schiltz, 415 Ill. 545, 114 N.E.2d 691 (1953), and Korsgaard v. Elliott, 17 Ill.App.3d 1061, 309 N.E.2d 263 (1974), in which the court allowed reformation of the erroneous deeds to reflect the actual intention of the parties. ¶ 18 David and Korsgaard are distinguishable.

  3. Biren v. Kluver

    35 Ill. App. 3d 692 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976)   Cited 9 times

    A mutual mistake exists when the contract has been written in terms which violate the understanding of both parties. ( Korsgaard v. Elliott, 17 Ill. App.3d 1061, 1063 (1974).) The instrument may also be reformed upon proof of a mistake by one party to the contract when the other party knows of the mistake and fails to inform the other party or conceals the truth from him.