Ward v. Ward, 239 Va. 1

Summary

The case of Ward v. Ward involves a dispute over a property settlement agreement between a divorced couple. The husband, Richard, sought to reform the agreement, claiming that it did not reflect the parties' actual intent due to a unilateral mistake. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the agreement was not ambiguous and that Richard was not entitled to relief without a showing of mutual mistake or fraud. The court found that the mistake was unilateral and that Richard failed to prove fraud on the part of his ex-wife, Linda.

Holdings

1. Reformation of a written instrument is available for a mistake of fact when the mistake is mutual, or when the mistake is unilateral and is accompanied by misrepresentation and fraud by the other party. Because Linda did not share Richard's alleged mistake and fraud was neither properly pleaded nor proven, Richard was not entitled to reformation.
2. Extrinsic evidence could not be used to vary the terms of the unambiguous agreement on the record presented, because the alleged mistake was unilateral and no properly pleaded and provable fraud justified consideration of parol evidence.
3. The court declined to adopt a rule that a mistake by one party known to the other party, with or without the other party's silence, is equivalent to mutual mistake.

Questions Presented

1. Whether extrinsic or parol evidence was admissible to vary the unambiguous property settlement agreement when Richard alleged that the writing did not reflect the parties' actual intent.
2. Whether Richard was entitled to reformation based on an alleged unilateral mistake absent a properly pleaded and proven fraud by Linda.
3. Whether Virginia should adopt a rule treating one party's knowledge of the other's mistake, or knowledge combined with silence, as equivalent to mutual mistake.

Disposition

affirmed