§

Kowatch v. Darnell

354 Mich. 197 (Mich. 1958)
Kowatch v. Darnell

6 Citing cases

  1. Cook v. Sellers

    No. 351125 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2021)   Cited 1 times
    Finding that defendant abandoned easement "for roadway purposes" due to "the lack of any evidence that the [defendant] ever used the purported easement" for that purpose

    ' " 5 Williston on Contracts (Rev Ed), p 4423, § 1585, quoting from Leitensdorfer v Delphy, 15 Mo 160, 167 (55 Am Dec 137). [Scott, 301 Mich at 237.] In Kowatch v Darnell, 354 Mich 197; 92 NW2d 342 (1958), three different parties agreed to buy excess land adjacent to their properties from the Highway Commissioner, who agreed to sell the property because it was not needed for highway purposes. Id. at 199-200.

  2. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Jones

    No. 319231 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2015)

    It was not necessary that Deutsche Bank obtain an assignment of Acoustic's contract rights in order to have standing to seek reformation of the mortgage instrument. Cf. Kowatch v Darnell, 354 Mich 197, 200-201; 92 NW2d 342 (1958) (a contractual arrangement was not a prerequisite for a party to seek reformation of a deed). Therefore, the trial court did not err in resolving the motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) in favor of Deutsche Bank and its servicer, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., and in denying defendants' motion pursuant to MCR 2.116(I)(2).

  3. In re Vandenbosch

    405 B.R. 253 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2009)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that trustee was entitled to avoid mortgage under 11 U.S.C. § 544 due to the incorrect address in the recorded mortgage

    See Olson v. Aegis Mortgage Corp. (In re Bloxsom), 389 B.R. 52, 57 (Bankr. W.D.Mich.2008) (citing Kowatch v. Darnell, 354 Mich. 197, 92 N.W.2d 342, 343 (1958) (additional citations omitted)). "However, reformation is not available if the subject property has been acquired by a bona fide purchaser for value and without notice."

  4. In re Vandenbosch

    Bankruptcy No. GG 03-14425, Adversary No. 05-81523 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2009)

    Michigan law permits a "court in equity" to "reform an instrument, including a mortgage, to include property that had been omitted by the mutual mistake of both the grantor and the grantee." See Olson v. Aegis Mortgage Corp. (In re Bloxsom), 389 B.R. 52, 57 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2008) (citing Kowatch v. Darnell, 92 N.W.2d 342, 343 (Mich. 1958) (additional citations omitted)). "However, reformation is not available if the subject property has been acquired by a bona fide purchaser for value and without notice."

  5. In re Bloxsom

    389 B.R. 52 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2008)   Cited 18 times
    Explaining the trustee may simply raise his status as a BFP as a defense to reformation

    A court in equity can reform an instrument, including a mortgage, to include property that had been omitted by the mutual mistake of both the grantor and the grantee. Kowatch v. Darnell, 354 Mich. 197, 200-01, 92 N.W.2d 342 (1958); Zomerhuis v. Blankvoort, 235 Mich. 376, 379, 209 N.W. 56 (1926); Maki v. Karvonen, 322 Mich. 696, 699, 34 N.W.2d 469 (1948). Moreover, a privy to either party may also seek or be subject to reformation of a document.

  6. General Development Corp. v. Kirk

    251 So. 2d 284 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 26 times
    Standing is that sufficient interest in the outcome of litigation which will warrant the court's entertaining it

    Fla. Stat. 253.12(4) (1969) F.S.A. For prior law see C.G.L.Fla. §§ 1387, 1388, 1393, 1426, 1427 (1927). We think a more reasonable view of standing is found in Jones v. McNealy, 1904, 139 Ala. 378, 35 So. 1022; Williams v. Hebbard, 1939, 33 Cal.App.2d 686, 92 P.2d 657; Kowatch v. Darnell, 1958, 354 Mich. 197, 92 N.W.2d 342; Polhamus v. Hines, Sup.Ct. 1926, 128 Misc. 299, 218 N.Y.S. 401 (parties "sufficiently in privity"); and Houlihan v. Murphy, 1962, 93 R.I. 499, 177 A.2d 192 (no discussion of standing, but action allowed.) See also Annotation, 79 A.L.R.2d 1180.