Real property – Reformation – Mutual mistake

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff has filed a complaint seeking reformation of a deed, a motion to dismiss the complaint should be denied because the plaintiff has stated a claim for reformation based on a scrivener’s error.

“The exclusion of language granting Amol and Dhansukhlal [Mandalaywala] rights of survivorship was a clerical error that occurred during the drafting process. …

“Anjali [Kaul] seeks to dismiss the amended complaint on three grounds. First, she asserts that the reformation claim is time-barred by the statute of limitations. Second, she argues that the facts as pled do not establish a claim for reformation based on mutual mistake. Third, she argues that the amended complaint names no defendant capable of being sued. …

“Anjali argues that Amol has failed to state a claim for reformation based on mutual mistake for two reasons. First, Anjali argues that, to plead mutual mistake, Amol must allege a mistake made by all parties to the deed, including the grantor. … Second, Anjali argues that a mistake of law is not grounds for reformation. … Neither reason is grounds for dismissing the amended complaint. …

“Accepting the allegations in the amended complaint as true, as the court must, Amol has stated a claim for reformation based on a scrivener’s error. Like the grantees in Reder [v. Kuss, 351 Mass. 15 (1966)], Amol and his father allegedly shared a clear intent to hold the property as joint tenants with a right of survivorship, but were instead granted the property as tenants in common due to an alleged ‘clerical error.’ It is not necessary to allege that the grantor also shared in this mistake or to include the grantor as a party to this action. …

“Anjali is mistaken that a reformation claim may not be based on a mistake of law. …

“While Amol may not have understood the effect of the language used in the deed, this alone does not bar his reformation claim. Accepting as true the allegation that the missing right of survivorship is a scrivener’s error, Amol has stated a claim for reformation. Of course, Amol will have to prove that the deed ‘did not accurately express the conveyance that the scrivener was directed by the parties to prepare’ before he is entitled to relief. …

“Anjali seeks dismissal of the amended complaint on the grounds that Amol’s reformation claim is time-barred by the statute of limitations. … Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations only begins to run when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the facts giving rise to the cause of action. …

“The deed in this case was recorded on August 19, 2010. Amol expected Dhansukhlal’s name to appear on the deed and was aware that Dhansukhlal was a co-owner of the property. Amol was not aware, however, that the language in the deed granted Dhansukhlal a property interest that would not pass to Amol upon Dhansukhlal’s death. According to the facts alleged in the amended complaint, no event occurred prior to 2020 to prompt Amol to investigate whether the deed created the intended interest type. The statute of limitations therefore began to run upon Dhansukhlal’s death in May 2020 and would expire in May 2026. Amol filed the initial complaint in this case on February 19, 2025. The amended complaint was filed on June 4, 2025, and relates back to the date of the filing of the complaint. Mass. R. Civ. P. 15(c). Both the complaint and the amended complaint were filed within the limitations period. Because Amol first became aware of this mistake in May 2020 and filed this reformation action within six years of this discovery, the reformation claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. …

“Anjali argues that Amol’s claim must be dismissed for failure to name a defendant legally capable of being sued. The original complaint named as defendant the estate of Dhansukhlal Mandalaywala. The amended complaint names Amol, in his capacity as personal representative of Dhansukhlal’s estate, as the defendant. Anjali argues that this creates a conflict of interest between Amol’s duty to protect the beneficiaries of the estate and the pursuit of his own interests as plaintiff in this lawsuit. …

“Amol named himself as the defendant in the amended complaint at the court’s direction. … The court will not dismiss Amol’s complaint for an amendment that the court itself ordered.”

Mandalaywala v. Mandalaywala (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-009-26) (10 pages) (Foster, J.) (Worcester Land Court) (Docket No. 25 MISC 000084) (Feb. 2, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.