Hartline v. Hartline
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA14-837 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 3 February 2015 CHARLES HARTLINE AND MARY HARTLINE, Plaintiffs, v. Jackson County Nos. 12 CVS 572, 707 WILLIAM ALBERT HARTLINE, Defendant. Appeal by plaintiffs from judgment entered 20 December 2013 by Judge M. Pope, Jr. in Jackson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 January 2015. McLean Law Firm, P.A., plaintiffs-appellants. by Russell L. McLean, III, for Frank G. Queen, PLLC, by Frank G. Queen, for defendantappellee. HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge. In an action to reform a deed, the question presented for review is whether there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to send the issue of mutual mistake to the jury. Because our record review cannot find any competent, admissible evidence that defendant was mistaken at the time the deed was executed, -2we affirm the trial court’s judgment granting a directed verdict and dismissing plaintiffs’ claim. I. Factual and Procedural History Plaintiff Mary Hartline is Plaintiff Charles Hartline’s and Defendant William Albert (“Albert”) Hartline’s mother. Together with her late husband, Mrs. Hartline conveyed a 2.58 acre tract of land to Albert in September 2010. The deed for the conveyance was drafted by an attorney hired by Albert. Charles, who thought that the property would be split between his brother and himself, discovered that the property was in his brother’s name the following year. Charles brought the issue to his parents and in May 2012, Mrs. Hartline and her late husband signed and recorded a corrective deed as to the 2.58 acre tract. The conveyed to Albert. taken back by the corrective deed reduced the acreage By a separate quitclaim deed, the acreage corrective deed was conveyed to Charles. Defendant refused to sign the corrective deed. Plaintiffs filed this action in order to either nullify or reform the deed conveying the 2.58 acre tract to defendant. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, mutual mistake in executing the deed. At trial, Mrs. Hartline testified that she intended to convey approximately half of the tract to Charles and the other -3half to Albert in 2010 and thought that she was signing a deed to that effect. and that the Defendant testified that there was no mistake property belongs to him. Testimony from the attorney who drafted the deed and his paralegal corroborated defendant’s testimony. At the close of all the evidence, defendant moved for a directed verdict on the issue of mutual mistake, which was granted and a judgment was entered dismissing plaintiffs’ claim. Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal. II. Jurisdiction Plaintiffs’ appeal from the trial court’s judgment lies of right to this Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b) (2013). III. Analysis Plaintiffs contend that there was sufficient evidence to send the issue of mutual mistake to the jury. We disagree. A motion for a directed verdict under Rule 50(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure presents the same question for both trial and appellate courts: whether the evidence, taken in a light most favorable to plaintiff, was sufficient for submission to the jury. The question of the evidence’s sufficiency is a matter of law, and the motion should be reversed if there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support all the elements of plaintiff’s prima facie case. Therefore, this Court reviews the record and transcript de novo, reversing upon a finding of more than a -4scintilla of evidence supporting each element of plaintiff’s prima facie case. Castle McCulloch, Inc. v. Freedman, 169 N.C. App. 497, 500, 610 S.E.2d 416, 419, aff’d, 360 (internal citations omitted). N.C. 57, 620 S.E.2d 674 (2005) In other words, so long as “some view of the facts reasonably established by the evidence” would support a jury’s decision in favor of plaintiffs on the issue of mutual mistake, the evidence should be submitted to the jury. Stark ex rel. Jacobsen v. Ford Motor Co., 365 N.C. 468, 480, 723 S.E.2d 753, 761 (2012). “A mutual mistake exists only when both parties labor under the same misconception respecting a material fact, the terms of the agreement, or the provisions designed to embody such agreement.” of the written instrument Sudds v. Gillian, 152 N.C. App. 659, 662, 568 S.E.2d 214, 217 (2002) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). “While a written instrument may be reformed on the grounds of mutual mistake, the mistake that the law requires is that of both parties to the instrument. The mistake of one party not induced by the fraud of the other is not enough.” Mock v. Mock, 77 N.C. App. 230, 231, 334 S.E.2d 409, 409 (1985) (internal citations omitted). Here, Mrs. Hartline provided testimony tending to show that she was mistaken when the deed to defendant was executed and -5that it was her intent to split the 2.58 acre tract between her two sons. Even so, there is no testimony tending to show that defendant was mistaken. Defendant, the attorney who drafted the deed, and the attorney’s paralegal all testified that defendant knew from the outset that he was receiving the entire 2.58 acre tract in the conveyance. Although plaintiffs’ brief directs our attention to testimony from Charles that recounts a conversation where defendant characterized the conveyance as a “mistake,” a careful review of the transcript shows that this statement was never admitted into evidence. An objection and motion to strike the testimony was sustained by the trial court. Plaintiffs further contend that certain testimony critical to their mutual mistake claim was improperly excluded by the trial court Statute.” under N.C. R. Evid. 601(c), the “Dead Man’s Specifically, plaintiffs contend that the trial court improperly excluded testimony from three witnesses, including Mrs. Hartline, which tended to show that her late husband was also mistaken in the execution of the deed and that it was his intent to split the property between his sons. Yet, even if this testimony had been admitted at trial, it would not tend to establish that defendant was plaintiffs’ prima facie case. mistaken, which is critical to While Mr. and Mrs. Hartline may -6have intended to split the property between their sons, without evidence that defendant had the same intention, there is insufficient evidence to send the issue of mutual mistake to the jury. 508 See Willis v. Willis, 365 N.C. 454, 458, 722 S.E.2d 505, (2012) instrument, (“[t]he alone, mistake not of induced one by party the to fraud the of deed, the or other, affords no ground for relief by reformation.” (alteration in original) (quoting Crawford v. Willoughby, 192 N.C. 269, 272, 134 S.E. 494, 496 (1926))). IV. For the foregoing Conclusion reasons, the trial court’s judgment granting a directed verdict and dismissing plaintiffs’ mutual mistake claim is affirmed. Affirmed. Judges BRYANT and STROUD concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
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.
