Lee State Bank v. McElheny

25 Citing cases

  1. Ford Motor Co. v. Woodhaven

    475 Mich. 425 (Mich. 2006)   Cited 136 times
    Stating that “because ‘mutual mistake of fact’ is a legal term, resort to a legal dictionary to determine its meaning may also be helpful”

    Our review of our precedents involving the law of mistake indicates that the peculiar and appropriate meaning that the term "mutual mistake of fact" has acquired in our law has not changed since Sherwood, supra. See, e.g., Lee State Bank v. McElheny, 227 Mich. 322, 327-328, 198 N.W. 928 (1924); Goldberg v. Cities Service Oil Co., 275 Mich. 199, 266 N.W. 321 (1936); Lake Gogebic Lumber Co. v. Burns, 331 Mich. 315, 49 N.W.2d 310 (1951); McCleery v. Briggs, 333 Mich. 522, 525, 53 N.W.2d 361 (1952); Gordon v. City of Warren Planning & Urban Renewal Comm., 388 Mich. 82, 88-89, 199 N.W.2d 465 (1972). And the term's meaning was not intended to be altered when the Legislature imported the common-law term "mutual mistake of fact" into MCL 211.53a.

  2. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA v. Winget

    Case No. 08-13845 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 13, 2011)   Cited 1 times
    Concluding borrowers created genuine issue of material fact on reformation claim based on multiple pieces of testimonial and documentary evidence

    To obtain reformation, a party must establish by clear and satisfactory evidence of a mutual mistake. Lee State Bank v. McElheny, 227 Mich. 322, 327; 198 N.W. 928 (1924). A "mutual mistake of fact" is " 'an erroneous belief, which is shared and relied on by both parties, about a material fact that affects the substance of the transaction.

  3. Hamade v. Sunoco, Inc.

    271 Mich. App. 145 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 105 times
    Holding that a "valid integration clause renders reliance on the representation [that Defendant would not permit a competing franchise to operate in the same area] unreasonable as a matter of law"

    This rule recognizes that in "[b]ack of nearly every written instrument lies a parol agreement, merged therein." Lee State Bank v McElheny, 227 Mich 322, 327; 198 NW 928 (1924). "The practical justification for the rule lies in the stability that it gives to written contracts; for otherwise either party might avoid his obligation by testifying that a contemporaneous oral agreement released him from the duties that he had simultaneously assumed in writing."

  4. UAW-GM Human Resource Center v. KSL Recreation Corp.

    228 Mich. App. 486 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 303 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "parol evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements or negotiations is admissible on the threshold question whether a written contract is an integrated instrument that is a complete expression of the parties' agreement"

    This rule recognizes that in "[b]ack of nearly every written instrument lies a parol agreement, merged therein." Lee State Bank v McElheny, 227 Mich. 322, 327; 198 N.W. 928 (1924). "The practical justification for the rule lies in the stability that it gives to written contracts; for otherwise either party might avoid his obligation by testifying that a contemporaneous oral agreement released him from the duties that he had simultaneously assumed in writing."

  5. City of Detroit v. TXU Energy Retail Co.

    221 F. App'x 387 (6th Cir. 2007)   Cited 2 times

    "Back of nearly every written instrument lies a parol agreement, merged therein; but the writing controls unless a court of equity, on invocation of its power, finds the writing does not express what the minds of the parties met on, and intended, and supposed they had expressed, but which miscarried by mutual mistake." E.R. Brenner Co. v. Brooker Eng'g Co., 301 Mich. 719, 723, 4 N.W.2d 71 (1942) (quoting Lee State Bank v. McElheny, 227 Mich. 322, 327, 198 N.W. 928 (1924)). The parties agree that TXU had the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the contract should be reformed in order to carry out the true agreement of the parties. Id.; Dingeman v. Reffitt, 152 Mich.App. 350, 358, 393 N.W.2d 632 (1986).

  6. Process Control & Instrumentation v. Emerson Process Mgmt. Power & Water Solutions, Inc.

    No. 12-15670 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 30, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    This rule recognizes that in "[b]ack of nearly every written instrument lies a parol agreement, merged therein." Lee State Bank v. McElheny, 227 Mich. 322, 327, 198 N.W. 928 (1924). "The practical justification for the rule lies in the stability that it gives to written contracts; for otherwise either party might avoid his obligation by testifying that a contemporaneous oral agreement released him from the duties that he had simultaneously assumed in writing."

  7. Howell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

    Case No. 12-14406 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 4, 2014)

    76 C.J.S. Reformation of Instruments § 100. It follows then that the reformation of a contract relates back to the date the original contract was executed. Lee State Bank v. McElheny, 198 N.W. 928, 930 (Mich. 1924) ("Reformation relates back to the date of the mortgage."); see also 76 C.J.S. Reformation of Instruments § 101 ("[T]he reformation of an instrument relates back to the time of the original execution of such instrument."); 366 Am. Jur. 2d Reformation of Instruments § 9. The decision by the Michigan Supreme Court in Pink is inapposite to this case.

  8. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget

    901 F. Supp. 2d 955 (E.D. Mich. 2012)   Cited 5 times

    To obtain reformation, a party must establish by clear and satisfactory evidence of a mutual mistake. Lee State Bank v. McElheny, 227 Mich. 322, 327, 198 N.W. 928 (1924). One Michigan court stated that the mistake must be proven “beyond cavil.”

  9. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget

    Case No. 08-13845 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 17, 2012)

    To obtain reformation, a party must establish by clear and satisfactory evidence of a mutual mistake. Lee State Bank v. McElheny, 227 Mich. 322, 327 (1924). One Michigan court stated that the mistake must be proven "beyond cavil."

  10. In re Kalabat

    592 B.R. 134 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2018)   Cited 10 times

    76 C.J.S. Reformation of Instruments § 100. It follows then that the reformation of a contract relates back to the date the original contract was executed. Lee State Bank v. McElheny , 227 Mich. 322, 198 N.W. 928, 930 (Mich. 1924) ("Reformation relates back to the date of the mortgage."); see also 76 C.J.S. Reformation of Instruments § 101 ("[T]he reformation of an instrument relates back to the time of the original execution of such instrument."); 366 Am.Jur.2d Reformation of Instruments § 9.Id. at *3.