Bailey v. Ewing
Court of Appeals of Idaho
671 P.2d 1099 (1983)
During an estate auction, the auctioneer told Guy Ewing (defendant) that a lot's property line ran thirteen feet from the house at some lilac bushes, and Ewing bought the lot relying on that boundary; Fred Bailey (plaintiff) bought the neighboring lot. Ewing maintained and later fenced the property up to the lilac bushes, but Bailey sued to quiet title to that strip, and Ewing counterclaimed to reform both deeds based on mutual mistake about the boundary. The trial court ruled for Bailey, characterizing the error as Ewing's own unilateral mistake, and Ewing appealed.
Whether the doctrine of mutual mistake requires that both parties to a contract were mistaken about the same basic assumption, and if so, whether reformation is still available where a third party purchased in reliance on the contract without notice of the mistake.