GARY and LINDA SCHULTE, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. BRIAN and LINDA HARVEY, Defendants-Appellants.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-808 / 09-0327
Filed December 17, 2009
GARY and LINDA SCHULTE,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.
BRIAN and LINDA HARVEY,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Bradley J. Harris,
Judge.
Brian and Linda Harvey appeal from the district court order denying their
claims arising from a real estate transaction. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED
IN PART, AND MODIFIED.
William H. Roemerman of Crawford, Sullivan, Read & Roemerman, P.C.,
Cedar Rapids, for appellants.
Todd J. Locher of Locher & Locher, Farley, for appellees.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer, J., and Mahan, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2009).
2
EISENHAUER, J.
Brian and Linda Harvey appeal from the district court order denying their
claims arising from a real estate transaction.
They claim the court erred in
refusing to reform the contract and find a breach, in failing to consider the
doctrine of merger, in finding Gary and Linda Schulte breached their warranty of
title, and in calculating the damages award.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings. The Harveys entered into a
contract to purchase a parcel of real estate from the Schultes, intending to move
a house onto the lot. When the parties entered into the contract, they were under
the belief that sewer and water lines were available close to the lot being
purchased.
Sometime after the real estate purchase contract signed by the
parties, they orally agreed to share the cost of installing a water line.
The Harveys’ house was moved onto the site, and the water line
installation began. It was during this time the parties learned the water main was
not located where they had originally thought. Following extensive negotiations,
the parties signed an “Agreement Relating to Water and Sewer” at the real estate
closing.
The agreement provides the Schultes pay one-half of the cost of
extending the waterline through their adjoining property, and the Harveys “be
responsible for the installation of the waterline from the City of Dyersville’s
nearest connection to the new line installed . . . at their sole cost.” Ultimately, the
Harveys drilled a well on their lot.
Various disputes arose between the parties as a result of the real estate
transaction.
The Schultes filed various claims against the Harveys and the
3
Harveys counterclaimed.
After trial, the court dismissed all claims and
counterclaims and ruled the Harveys owed the Schultes $1912.50 on a
promissory note.
At issue here is the district court’s denial of the Harveys’
breach of contract and breach of warranty claims.
II. Analysis. The Harveys contend the real estate contract was induced
by a mutual mistake of fact as to the locations of the water main. They argue this
mistake of fact warrants reformation of the contract.
Once the contract is
reformed, the Harveys contend the facts show the Schultes breached the
contract. Because this matter was tried in equity, our review is de novo. Iowa R.
App. P. 6.907 (2009).
The proper relief for a mutual mistake of a material fact in a written
instrument is reformation of the instrument to reflect the true intent of the
contracting parties. Wilden Clinic, Inc. v. City of Des Moines, 229 N.W.2d 286,
289 (Iowa 1975). The Harveys have the burden of establishing a mutual mistake
of fact by clear, satisfactory and convincing proof. See id.
Mistakes involving contracts “can be made in the formation,
integration, or performance of a contract.” Mistake in expression,
or integration, occurs when the parties reach an agreement but fail
to accurately express it in writing. Mistakes in the formation of
contracts include mistakes in an underlying assumption concerning
matters relevant to the decision to enter into a contract. In this
category of mistake, the agreement was reached and expressed
correctly, yet based on a false assumption.
State ex rel. Palmer v. Unisys Corp., 637 N.W.2d 142, 151 (Iowa 2001) (citations
omitted). When the mistake is in the expression of the contract, the proper
remedy is reformation. Nichols v. City of Evansdale, 687 N.W.2d 562, 570 (Iowa
4
2004). When the mistake is in the formation of the contract, on the other hand,
avoidance is the proper remedy. Id. at 571.
Specifically, when a mistake of both parties at the time a contract
was made as to a basic assumption upon which the contract was
made has a material effect on the agreed exchange of
performances, the contract is voidable by the adversely affected
party unless he bears the risk of the mistake.
Id.
The Harveys are alleging a mistake in the formation of the contract—the
belief that water was available near the property. Such mutual mistake makes
the contract voidable by both parties. See id. “However, a mutual mistake in the
formation of a contract does not render it void; it merely renders it voidable.” Id.
In the case of a voidable contract, if neither party seeks avoidance, the court
cannot void the contract, and the contract remains valid.
Although a mutual mistake of fact existed regarding the location of the
nearest water main, neither party voided the contract upon discovery of the
mistake.
Rather, they sought to modify their purchase agreement to assign
responsibility for the cost of extending the water line from the nearest water main.
Their agreement is valid.
Having found no basis to reform the contract, we
likewise find no breach of contract and the denial of the Harveys’ breach of
contract claim is affirmed.
The Harveys also contend the Schultes breached their warranty of title by
failing to deliver a deed without encumbrances. In its ruling, the district court
found the agreement to deliver the real estate with clear title was modified by
further negotiations between the parties. However, in the deed signed by the
5
parties, it warrants the property is “free and clear of all liens and encumbrances.”
Absent any showing to the contrary, a contract for conveyance of real estate is
deemed to have merged in a subsequent deed. Lovlie v. Plumb, 250 N.W.2d 56,
62 (Iowa 1977). This is true even though the terms and conditions of the deed
are not identical to those of the contract. Id. In spite of the clear language in the
deed to the contrary, the property was delivered subject to a mortgage in favor of
Community Savings Bank. Accordingly, the district court erred in finding there
was no breach of warranty of title and we reverse this portion of the ruling. As
requested by the Harveys, the Schultes shall remove any liens or encumbrances
on the property as soon as possible.
Finally, the Harveys contend the district court made a mathematical error
in the amount of $200 in calculating the award of damages on the Schultes’
breach of contract claim.
We modify the award of damages made to the
Schultes on their breach of contract claim, finding the remaining due is $1712.50.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND MODIFIED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.