SAM SUGAR, M.D. AND JUDY SUGAR, APPELLANTS,
v.
IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF IDELLE STERN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the probate court's reformation of a settlement agreement in a guardianship matter, correcting an inadvertent omission of an opt-out provision regarding Oppenheimer Trust Company litigation that paralleled an identical provision concerning White & Case. The reformation was justified by unrefuted evidence of mutual mistake and scrivener's error.
The court affirmed the reformation order because it was unrefuted that the parties mutually intended the settlement agreement to contain an identical opt-out provision regarding Oppenheimer as was included regarding White & Case, and the omission resulted from a mutual mistake caused by scrivener's error or inadvertence.
[1] A settlement agreement may be reformed when a written instrument, due to mutual mistake, does not accurately express the intent or agreement of the parties.
[2] Reformation of a settlement agreement is an equitable remedy available when a written document fails to reflect the parties' true intentions due to a scrivener's error or…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“reformation is an equitable remedy employed when a written instrument, due to mutual mistake, does not accurately express the intent or agreement of the parties”
Establishes the legal standard for reformation based on mutual mistake
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2010, Idelle Stern was declared incapacitated and CPCS was appointed as her plenary guardian. A settlement agreement was reached among three of Mrs…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reformation Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
In 2010, the probate court declared Idelle Stern incapacitated as a result of her advanced age and stroke-related diminished mental capacity, and appointed Comprehensive Personal Care Services, Inc. (“CPCS”) as plenary guardian over her person and her property. Mrs. Stern’s property included her interest in a trust in which the Oppenheimer Trust Company (“Oppenheimer”) served as a co-trustee. In an effort to resolve numerous adversary proceedings, the following parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was ultimately approved by the probate court: three of Mrs. Stern’s daughters, Rochelle Keveloson, Tikvah Lyons, and Joyce Genauer (collectively, “the three daughters”); Mrs. Stern’s other daughter and her husband, Judy Sugar and Dr. Sam Sugar (collectively, “the Sugars”); and CPCS. Thereafter, however, it was discovered that the settlement agreement, which contained a provision that the Sugars agreed to be released from any responsibility and to receive no benefit from any suit filed against White & Case for malpractice, inadvertently omitted a similar provision as to any litigation against Oppenheimer. The three daughters and CPCS moved for reformation of the settlement agreement, which was granted over the objection of the Sugars, and this appeal followed.
The trial court’s order granting reformation of the settlement agreement is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Kartzmark v. Kartzmark, 709 So.2d 583, 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Because it is unrefuted1 that the Sugars intended that *811the settlement agreement contain the same opt-out provision regarding Oppenheimer as was included in the settlement agreement regarding White & Case, and that the omission was as a result of a mutual mistake due to a scrivener’s error or inadvertence, we affirm. See Tobin v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., 948 So.2d 692, 696 (Fla.2006) (holding that reformation is an equitable remedy employed when a written instrument, due to mutual mistake, does not accurately express the intent or agreement of the parties); Moree v. Moree, 59 So.3d 205, 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (finding the existence of a mutual mistake where the difference between what the parties agreed to and what the written documents state was due to a scrivener’s error or inadvertence).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sam Sugar, M.D. v. In re Est. OF Idelle Stern, 201 So. 3d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
Authorities Cited
- Tobin v. Mich. Mut. Ins. Co., 948 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 2006)
- Kartzmark v. Kartzmark, 709 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Moree v. Moree, 59 So. 3d 205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)