context: Based on the foregoing evidence and the law in Tennessee regarding mutual mistake, it would appear that but for the debtors' current bankruptcy filing, a court of equity would reform the deed in question to preserve First American's secured position.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 266 S.W. 110, 120
citation_a.parenthetical: court stated that it was well-settled that a court of equity may reform a written instrument on the ground of mistake, but held no showing of mutual mistake in the case
citation_a.sentence: See also Jones v. Jones, 150 Tenn. 554, 266 S.W. 110, 120 (1924) (court stated that it was well-settled that a court of equity may reform a written instrument on the ground of mistake, but held no showing of mutual mistake in the case).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: absent intervening rights of innocent third parties, reformation permitted where creditor had executed release of note by mistake
citation_b.sentence: See Alston v. Porter, 31 Tenn.App. 628, 219 S.W.2d 745, 747 (1949) (court reformed deed which set forth descriptions of two tracts of property since understanding of parties was that only one tract was to be sold); Hamilton Nat’l Bank of Chattanooga v. Duncan, 23 Tenn.App. 329, 132 S.W.2d 353, 354 (1939) (absent intervening rights of innocent third parties, reformation permitted where creditor had executed release of note by mistake); Anderson, 74 S.W.2d at 390 (court set aside deed reserving life estate based upon evidence that there was no real meeting of the minds of the parties); City Bank & Trust Co. v. Webb, 1997 WL 44391 at *2 (Tenn.App. Feb.5, 1997) (court of appeals affirmed setting aside of foreclosure sale by chancery court where through mutual mistake bank had foreclosed on wrong lot).