ÿWPCÄ  …#†VUNÜ %* 0 (04Xl 0l{ 0Dç 0J+ 0Tu 0^É 0h' 0r 0| 0†} 0 1u“ U, 0d4 U,˜ BÄ U >á U 6B)UDC~ AMÁ D3U*A>k 0@©‚é¯k'IAv~ŠvÓ AOÛÆ* 0Dð 0D4 D/x B§ ˜HP LaserJet 4/4MHPPCL5E,,,,0®ØP 5ÊÇCÂQ âP(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡c`…3|x}((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial 4Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òJanuary€10,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò xÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔOn€May€10,€1994,€prior€to€the€settlement€in€this€case,€the€plaintiffÏtook€a€voluntary€non„suit€as€to€the€defendant€Glenn€A.€McCarty.€€He€is€not€aÏparty€to€this€appeal.Ì ¥Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÔ€&ÔT.R.A.P.€9€states,€in€pertinent€part,€that€"an€appeal€by€permission€mayÏbe€taken€from€an€interlocutory€order€of€a€trial€court€from€which€an€appealÏlies€to€the€Supreme€Court,€Court€of€Appeals€or€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€onlyÏupon€application€and€in€the€discretion€of€the€trial€and€appellate€court."Ô€%ÔÔ€%XÔ€ÏÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔPursuant€to€this€rule,€the€trial€court€granted€the€appellant€a€discretionaryÏappeal.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔThe€details€of€the€settlement€were€not€then€communicated€to€the€trialÏcourt.Ì ?Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔAs€we€understand€Cruze's€testimony,€he€is€certain€that€the€figureÏcommunicated€to€him€on€the€phone€was€$2,969.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ P ÑÔ€&ÔÑ7€%wXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌJAMES€B.€JOHNSON,€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9506„CV„00175ÌÙ€€ÙßL€),(;+'h|m` Å `€€Lßà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€)€KNOX€COUNTYÏCIRCUIT€COURTà à€Ìà à€€€€Plaintiff„Appellant,€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€)€HONORABLE€HAROLD€WIMBERLY,Ìà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)€JUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌGLENN€A.€McCARTY× ƒ. ××  ×,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àDefendant,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìand€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCONTINENTAL€BAKING€COMPANY,€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìà à€€€€Defendant„Appellee.à à)€REVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌGEORGE€W.€MORTON,€JR.,€of€MORTON€&€MORTON,€Knoxville,€forÏAppellantÌÌJANET€L.€HOGAN€of€HOGAN€&€HOGAN,€Knoxville,€for€AppelleeÏContinental€Baking€CompanyÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSusano,€J.ÇÓÓà àà àThis€T.R.A.P.€9× ƒ/ ××  ×€interlocutory€appeal€involves€a€disputeÏbetween€the€parties€regarding€a€settlement€agreement.€€TheÏagreement€at€issue€ostensibly€settled€a€tort€action€brought€by€theÏappellant€James€B.€Johnson€(Johnson)€for€serious€injuries€arisingÏout€of€an€automobile€accident,€the€facts€of€which€are€notÏpertinent€to€this€appeal.€€Although€the€parties€agree€that€theyÏentered€into€an€oral€settlement€and€also€agree€that€they€advisedÏthe€trial€court€that€they€had€settled€the€plaintiff's€suit× ƒ0 ××  ×,€theyÏare€now€in€dispute€as€to€the€terms€of€the€settlement.€€The€trialÏcourt€found€that€there€was€a€mutual€mistake€of€fact€in€theÏnegotiations€leading€up€to€the€settlement,€and€consequentlyÏrefused€to€enforce€the€more€generous€settlement€argued€for€byÏJohnson.€€Johnson€filed€a€T.R.A.P.€9€application€for€permission€toÏappeal,€and€in€the€interest€of€judicial€economy€and€efficiency,Ïthis€court€agreed€to€hear€his€appeal.€€Johnson€raises€as€the€soleÏissue€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€determination€that€theÍsettlement€agreement€argued€for€by€Johnson€was€unenforceable€dueÏto€mutual€mistake.€€ÌÇÓ  ÓIÌÌÓ  Óà àà àOn€May€16,€1994,€a€jury€was€empaneled€to€determineÏJohnson's€damages,€the€trial€court€having€earlier€granted€aÏpartial€summary€judgment€on€the€issue€of€liability.€€On€theÏmorning€of€May€17,€before€the€parties€started€their€second€day€ofÏtrial,€one€of€the€defendant's€attorneys,€Clifford€C.€Cruze,Ïreceived€a€telephone€call€from€an€agent€of€the€defendant,€whoÏadvised€him€that€the€defendant€Continental€Baking€Company€wantedÏto€extend€a€settlement€offer€to€Johnson.€€At€some€earlier€time€inÏthis€litigation,€Johnson€had€informed€the€defendant€that€forÏseveral€reasons,€including€beneficial€tax€consequences,€he€wasÏinterested€in€a€structured€settlement€rather€than€one€in€the€formÏof€a€lump€sum€payment.€€Thus,€Cruze€was€directed€by€the€agent€toÏpresent€three€structured€settlement€options,€which,€according€toÏCruze,€were€presented€by€the€agent€in€the€following€form:ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓOption€No.€1:€$400,000€cash€plus€$2,969€perÏmonth€for€life,€guaranteed€for€20€years.ÌÌOption€No.€2:€$450,000€cash€plus€$1,722€perÏmonth€for€life,€guaranteed€for€20€years.ÌÌOption€No.€3:€$500,000€cash€plus€$1,435.49€perÏmonth€for€life,€guaranteed€for€20€years.ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓCruze€testified€that€he€asked€the€defendant's€agent€to€repeat€€theÏmonthly€payment€in€Option€No.€1,€to€insure€that€he€had€heard€andÏwritten€down€the€amount€correctly.€€He€also€testified€that€theÏagent€told€him€that€the€defendant's€cost€of€procuring€each€of€theÏthree€options€was€$750,000.ÌÌà àà àCruze€then€called€Richard€W.€Krieg,€one€of€Johnson'sÏattorneys,€and€relayed€the€three€settlement€options€exactly€as€heÏhad€received€them.€€Shortly€thereafter,€the€parties€asked€theÏtrial€court€to€delay€the€continuation€of€the€trial€to€give€JohnsonÏtime€to€consider€the€defendant's€offer€of€settlement.€€The€trialÏjudge€agreed.€€Krieg€advised€his€client€of€the€three€settlementÏoptions,€and€for€most€of€the€remainder€of€the€morning,€Johnson,Ïmembers€of€his€family,€and€his€attorneys€discussed€the€threeÏsettlement€options.€€Those€involved€in€the€discussions,€Johnson,Ïhis€father,€and€the€three€attorneys€representing€Johnson,€i.e.,ÏKrieg,€Ellis€A.€Sharp,€and€Charles€B.€Lewis,€testified€that€theyÏnever€had€any€reason€to€question€the€accuracy€of€any€of€theÏnumbers€in€the€offer,€and€that€at€all€times€they€assumed€thatÏCruze€communicated€the€options€correctly.€At€one€point€in€theÏmorning,€Krieg€went€to€Cruze€and€the€two€compared€their€numbers€toÏmake€sure€they€were€the€same.€€Each€of€the€plaintiff's€attorneysÍtestified€that€they€were€under€the€impression€that€the€cost€to€theÏdefendant€for€each€option€would€be€$750,000,€simply€because€thatÏwas€the€representation€by€the€defendant's€counsel.€€ÌÌà àà àShortly€before€the€parties€agreed€to€settle€the€case,ÏKrieg€inquired€whether€the€defendant€would€pay€$750,000€in€oneÏlump€sum€and€received€an€affirmative€answer.€€Krieg€testified€thatÏthe€only€reason€he€asked€this€question€was€to€confirm€that€theÏoptions€presented€to€Johnson€were€really€worth€$750,000,€becauseÏhe€knew€that€if€they€were€not,€the€defendant€would€refuse€to€payÏit€in€a€lump€sum.€€Satisfied€that€the€defendant€was€not,€using€hisÏword,€"fudging,"€and€having€been€advised€that€his€client€wished€toÏaccept€Option€No.€1,€Krieg€told€opposing€counsel€that€the€case€wasÏsettled.€€Krieg€testified,€and€he€was€supported€by€the€testimonyÏof€Ellis€and€Lewis,€that€at€that€time,€in€the€courtroom,€heÏspecifically€told€the€defendant's€attorneys€that€his€clientÏaccepted€Option€No.€1.€€The€defendant's€attorneys,€Cruze€andÏSteven€G.€Shope,€testified€that€they€were€not€informed€that€OptionÏNo.€1€was€Johnson's€choice€until€òòafteróó€the€trial€court€was€advisedÏthe€case€was€settled;€but€in€any€event,€it€is€clear€that€all€theÏparties€knew€and€understood€that€Johnson€had€accepted€Option€No.€1Íby€the€time€the€parties€and€their€counsel€left€the€courthouse€thatÏsame€day.ÌÌà àà àAfter€the€parties€informed€the€trial€court€that€the€caseÏhad€been€settled,€the€court,€in€the€parties'€absence,€dismissedÏthe€jury.€ÌÌà àà àThe€problem€arose€later€that€afternoon,€when€the€actualÏpaperwork€for€the€settlement€was€sent€to€Krieg's€office.€€WhenÏKrieg€received€the€paperwork,€he€noticed€that€it€did€not€containÏthe€same€terms€upon€which€the€parties€had€agreed;€specifically,Ïthat€it€did€not€contain€the€$2,969€per€month€figure.€€He€calledÏthe€defendant's€attorneys,€and€it€then€became€apparent€that€anÏerror€had€been€made€on€the€defendant's€side,€at€some€point€that€isÏnot€clear€from€the€record× ƒ1 ××  ×,€in€the€communication€of€Option€No.€1.€ÏThe€defendant€apparently€had€intended€the€monthly€payments€in€thatÏoption€to€be€$2,009.69€rather€than€$2,969;€because€the€cost€of€aÏstructured€settlement€with€monthly€payments€of€$2,969,€whenÏcoupled€with€the€"front„end"€payment€of€$400,000,€was€considerablyÏhigher€than€$750,000.€€Krieg€advised€Cruze€that€while€anyÍtransmission€error€was€unfortunate,€his€client€had€accepted€aÏvalid€offer€including€the€$2,969€monthly€figure,€and€he€expectedÏthe€defendant€to€honor€the€settlement€as€agreed€to€by€the€parties.ÌÌà àà àJohnson€shortly€thereafter€filed€a€Motion€to€EnforceÏSpecific€Performance€of€Settlement€Agreement,€and€the€defendantÏcountered€by€filing€a€Motion€to€Enforce€a€$750,000€Settlement.€ÏThe€trial€court€found€that€there€was€a€mutual€mistake€of€factÏwhich€rendered€the€settlement€agreement€with€the€$2,969€figureÏunenforceable.€€The€trial€court€further€ruled€that€ÌÓÓÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÌbecause€the€mistake€was€initiated€by€theÏdefendant,€the€plaintiff€shall€have€the€optionÏof€taking€the€structured€settlement€ofÏ$400,000.00€in€cash€and€a€monthly€payment€forÏlife,€twenty€years€guaranteed,€at€a€sum€whichÏcan€be€purchased€by€defendant€for€$350,000.00Ìplus€interest€on€$750,000.00€at€the€legal€rateÏsince€July€1,€1994,€or€the€plaintiff€may€electÏto€retry€the€case€and€receive€an€amount€to€beÏdetermined€by€the€Court€as€damages€for€theÏexpenses€duplicated€by€the€second€trial.€ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓThis€interlocutory€appeal€followed.ÌÓÓÌÌÓ  ÓIIÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThis€case€is€before€us€for€a€òòde€novoóó€review.€€The€recordÏcomes€to€us€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€that€weÏmust€honor€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏcourt's€findings.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).ÌÌà àà àAlthough€the€motion€filed€by€the€defendant€is€entitledÏ"Motion€to€Enforce€a€$750,000€Settlement,"€the€defendant€does€notÏdeny€that€the€settlement€offer€made€and€accepted€was€Option€No.€1,Ïi.eòò.,óó€$400,000€plus€$2,969€per€month€for€life,€20€yearsÏguaranteed.€€Thus,€it€is€clear€that€the€remedy€sought€by€theÏdefendant€is€an€equitable€rescission,€or,€at€a€minimum,Ïreformation€of€the€settlement€agreement.€€The€defendant€contendsÏthat€all€the€parties€were€mistaken€that€the€settlement€packageÏcould€be€purchased€by€the€defendant€for€$750,000,€and€that€thisÏ"mutual€mistake"€rendered€the€settlement,€as€originally€agreedÏupon,€unenforceable.€€ÌÌà àà àIt€is€the€rule€in€Tennessee€that€"[t]o€be€the€subject€ofÏcorrection,€a€mistake€in€an€instrument€must€have€been€mutual€orÏthere€must€have€been€a€mistake€of€one€party€induced€by€the€fraudÏof€the€other."€€òòò òKozy€v.€Werle,ó óóó€902€S.W.2d€404,€411€(Tenn.App.Ï1995);€òòò òPierce€v.€Flynn,€ó óóó656€S.W.2d€42,€46€(Tenn.App.€1983);€òòseeÍalso€ò òCity€of€Memphis€v.€Mooreó óóó,€818€S.W.2d€13,€16€(Tenn.App.Ï1991)€("To€form€the€basis€for€the€equitable€remedy€of€reformationÏthere€must€have€been€a€mutual€mistake€or€a€mistake€by€one€partyÏinduced€by€the€other's€fraud.")€€Since€the€defendant€does€notÏargue€that€the€"mistake"€was€induced€by€Johnson€or€his€counsel,Ïour€focus€is€on€the€other€part€of€the€rule,€i.e.,€mutuality€ofÏmistake.€€In€our€judgment,€the€mistake€here€was€not€mutual,€butÏrather€unilateral€in€nature.€€It€is€true€that€Johnson€and€hisÏcounsel€were€advised€by€defendant's€counsel€that€the€cost€to€theÏdefendant€of€each€of€the€three€settlement€options€would€beÏ$750,000.€€This€"mistake,"€however,€was€clearly€initiated€andÏperpetuated€by€the€defendant.€€Generally€speaking,€a€unilateralÏmistake€is€insufficient€to€invalidate€an€otherwise€validÏcompromise€and€settlement.€€ò òòòCity€of€Memphisóóó ó,€818€S.W.2d€at€17;Ïò òòòMullins€v.€Parkeyó óóó,€874€S.W.2d€12,€15€(Tenn.App.€1992).€ÌÌà àà àBoth€Johnson€and€his€attorneys€testified€that€they€didÏnot€approach€the€settlement€offer€from€a€cost€basis,€but€ratherÏfocused€upon€whether€the€lump€sum€amount€and€the€monthly€paymentsÏwould€be€sufficient€to€satisfy€Johnson's€present€and€future€needs.€ÏAttorney€Lewis€testified€as€follows:€ÌÓÓÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒI€never€had€a€$750,000€offer.€€Seven€hundredÏand€fifty€thousand€was€mentioned€only€once.€ÏThat€was€when€I€was€in€the€room€with€Mr.ÏJohnson.€€And€I€said,€"guys,€if€we€can„„ifÏwe're€going€to€be€able€to€tell€Jim€what€heÏwill€get,€I'm€going€to€have€to€know€how€muchÏin€value€this€is."€€And€they€said,€"sevenÏhundred€and€fifty€thousand."€And€[attorneyÏSharp]€said,€"they're€saying€they€got€thisÏamazing€deal€from€the€structure€company€due€toÏthe€fact€that€the€interest€rate€had€changedÏand€some€other€things."€€And€I€never€knew€whatÏthose€were.ÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓTo€the€extent€that€the€offer€was€couched€in€terms€of€"up€front"Ïmoney€and€monthly€payments,€and€that€Johnson's€focus€was€uponÏthose€numbers,€the€total€cost€of€the€settlement€to€the€defendantÏwas€largely€immaterial€to€Johnson.€€As€Lewis€testified,€theÏprimary€reason€they€were€concerned€with€the€$750,000€figure€was€soÏthat€the€attorneys'€contingent€fee€could€be€calculated:ÌÓÓÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒQ:€€Did€you€make€any€assumption€whether€750Ïwould€buy€these€packages€or€not?ÌÌA:€€The€thought€never€crossed€my€mind.ÌÌQ:€€Now,€why€was€the€$750,000€information€thatÏyou€needed?ÌÌA:€€I€needed€that€to€know€what€a€third€of€whatÏfigure€to€take.€€That€was€our€fee.€€That's€theÏonly€reason.ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓWe€believe€the€fact€that€all€of€the€parties€were€mistaken€aboutÏthe€total€cost€to€the€defendant€(where€the€offer€did€not€consistÏof€one€lump€sum€but€rather€several€structured€settlement€options)Ïis€insufficient€to€compel€the€conclusion€that€the€settlementÏagreement€should€be€rescinded€or€reformed.€€The€plaintiff€did€notÏsettle€for€$750,000;€he€settled€for€$400,000€lump€sum€and€$2,969Ïper€month€for€life,€guaranteed€for€20€years.€€The€mistake€in€thisÏcase€is€that€the€defendant€apparently€intended€for€their€counselÏto€propose€an€option€with€a€$2,009.69€monthly€payment€rather€thanÏa€$2,969€monthly€payment.€€This€mistake€was€entirely€unknown€toÏthe€plaintiff€until€òòafteróó€this€case€had€been€concluded€byÏsettlement€and€the€jury€dismissed.€€There€was€no€mutualityÏregarding€this€mistake.€€It€was€a€unilateral€mistake€on€the€partÏof€the€defendant.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant's€reliance€on€the€case€of€ò òòòVakil€v.ÏIdnanió óóó,€748€S.W.2d€196€(Tenn.App.€1987),€is€misplaced.€€In€theÏò òòòVakil€ó óóócase,€the€court€granted€reformation€of€a€real€estate€deedÏwhere€the€deed€erroneously€placed€additional€monetary€obligationsÏon€the€buyer,€making€the€effective€total€price€of€the€realÏproperty€$600,000.€€òòId.óó€at€199.€€It€was€undisputed,€and€theÏsellers€frankly€admitted,€that€the€parties€had€previously€agreedÍto€and€contracted€for€a€total€price€of€$450,000.€€òòId.óó€€In€the€caseÏat€bar,€however,€there€was€no€contradictory€prior€agreement,€butÏrather€an€offer,€albeit€an€incorrectly€presented€one,€which€wasÏduly€accepted.€€ò òòòVakil€ó óóóis€readily€distinguishable€from€the€presentÏcase.ÓÓÓ  ÓÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€also€asserts€that€the€$2,969€monthlyÏpayment€figure€was€so€clearly€and€palpably€erroneous€on€its€faceÏthat€Johnson€should€be€considered€to€have€been€put€on€notice€ofÏits€existence.€€In€so€arguing,€the€defendant€attempts€to€analogizeÏthe€present€facts€to€those€in€the€case€of€ò òòòCofrancesco€Const.ÏCo.€v.€Superior€Components,€Inc.,ó óóó€371€S.W.2d€821€(Tenn.App.Ï1963).€€In€the€ò òòòCofrancescoó óóó€case,€the€contractor€defendant,ÏCofrancesco,€accepted€bids€for€a€construction€job€which€requiredÏroughly€25,000€board€feet€of€lumber.€€òòId.€€óóCofrancesco€receivedÏtwo€bids€on€the€lumber;€one€was€for€$4,015.50,€and€the€other,€theÏone€at€issue€in€the€case,€was€for€$1,310.€€òòId.€óóat€822.€€It€wasÏshown€that€the€"low"€bidder,€Superior€Components,€Inc.€had€made€aÏclerical€error€of€$4,000€in€the€bid,€and€the€correct€bid€shouldÏhave€been€$5,310.€€òòId.€óóat€823.€ÌÌà àà àThe€ò òòòCofrancesco€ó óóócourt€provided€the€followingÏrationales€for€allowing€reformation€of€the€contract:€ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓÌCofrancesco,€though€it€did€not€participate€inÏor€cause€Superior's€mistake,€had€good€reasonÏto€believe,€in€our€opinion,€that€Superior€hadÏmade€a€mistake€in€its€bid€quotation€as€(1)€theÏbid€of€Buttram„Graves€Lumber€Company,€whichÏwas€under€consideration€at€the€same€time€asÏthe€Superior€bid,€quoted€the€cost€of€#1€yellowÏpine€decking€at€a€price€more€than€3€times€theÏquoted€price€of€Douglas€Fir,€normally€a€moreÏexpensive€lumber;€(2)€Cofrancesco,€ofÏnecessity,€had€figured€the€amount€of€roofÏdecking€needed€and€its€cost€in€order€to€makeÏits€original€contract€with€the€church;€and€(3)Ïthe€quoted€price€of€the€#1€Douglas€Fir€quotedÏby€Superior€was€so€out€of€proportion€to€itsÏactual€cost,€or€for€that€matter€the€cost€ofÏany€lumber,€that€Cofrancesco,€as€anÏexperienced€contracting€firm,€should€have€beenÏput€on€notice€that€something€was€wrong.ÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÌÓÓòòId.€óóat€824.€€As€is€apparent€from€the€above€quotation,€theÏò òòòCofrancesco€ó óóócourt€was€presented€with€a€much€more€compellingÏfactual€case€for€reformation€than€are€we.€€There€are€no€facts€inÏthe€present€case€analogous€to€the€three€factors€described€above,Ïand€relied€upon€by€the€ò òòòCofrancesco€ó óóócourt,€and€we€therefore€findÏthat€case€distinguishable.€ÌÌà àà àAs€was€frankly€admitted€by€Johnson's€attorneys€at€theÏhearing€below,€there€is€a€fairly€clear€discrepancy€between€theÏmonthly€payment€figures€in€the€three€presented€options€òòifóó€oneÏengages€in€the€appropriate€mathematical€analysis.€€òòIn€this€case,Ínone€of€the€attorneys€involved€in€this€case,€including€defenseÏcounsel,€made€a€mathematical€analysis€of€the€three€options€inÏterms€of€what€each€structured€settlement€would€costóó.€€Futhermore,€Ïwe€do€not€think€the€error,€i.e.,€that€the€monthly€figure€shouldÏhave€been€$2,009.69€instead€of€$2,969,€is€so€obvious€on€the€faceÏof€the€three€options€that€Johnson€should€be€held€to€constructiveÏknowledge€of€it.€€In€the€first€place,€we€have€the€sworn€andÏunequivocal€testimony€of€all€three€of€Johnson's€then„attorneys,€ofÏJohnson€himself,€and€of€his€father,€that€the€possibility€of€errorÏin€the€settlement€offer€was€never€discussed€or€even€considered€byÏany€of€them.€€We€are€not€inclined€to€lightly€disregard€thisÏuncontradicted€testimony.€€Second,€and€more€importantly,€theÏdefendant's€assertion€that€the€error€is€so€obvious€on€its€faceÏthat€it€should€have€been€immediately€noticed€is€seriouslyÏundermined€by€the€fact€that€the€defendant'sòò€ownóó€attorneysÏreceived,€documented€and€relayed€the€numbers€without€everÏquestioning€them€or€suspecting€that€an€error€had€occurred.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€are€certainly€not€without€sympathy€for€the€plight€of€Ïthe€defendant,€for€there€is€now€little€doubt€that€a€mistake€wasÏmade€on€their€side€of€the€settlement€negotiations.€€However,€asÏbetween€the€two€parties,€it€seems€equitable€that€the€party€whoÍinitiated€and€perpetuated€the€error€should€bear€the€responsibilityÏfor€it.€€The€following€words€of€the€Supreme€Court,€written€over€aÏcentury€ago,€are€appropriate€here:ÌÓÓÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÌIt€seems€to€be€well€settled,€that,€if€a€partyÏinnocently€misrepresents€a€material€fact€byÏmistake,€upon€which€another€is€induced€to€act,Ïit€is€as€conclusive€a€ground€of€relief€inÏequity,€as€a€willful€and€false€assertion,€forÏit€operates€as€a€surprise€and€imposition€onÏthe€other€party.€€In€such€a€case,€the€partyÏmust€be€held€to€his€representations.ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓò òòòBankhead€v.€Alloway,€ó óóó46€Tenn.€56,€75€(1868).€€Also€approposÏhere€are€the€words€of€this€court€taken€from€the€case€of€òòò òPipkin€v.ÏLentzó óóó,€354€S.W.2d€87:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àThe€Courts€should€not€assume€a€paternalisticÏrole€when€the€rights€of€persons€who€are€suiÏjuris€are€involved.ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€92.ÌÌà àà àWe€find€and€hold€that€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€trial€court's€determination€that€a€òòmutualóó€mistake€occurred€inÏthe€parties'€settlement€negotiations.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed.€€This€caseÏis€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€the€entry€of€an€order€enforcingÏa€settlement€of€the€underlying€tort€action€for€$400,000,€andÏ$2,969€per€month€for€life,€guaranteed€for€20€years.€€ExercisingÏour€discretion,€the€plaintiff„appellant€is€awarded€pre„judgmentÏinterest€of€10%€per€annum€on€the€$400,000€front„end€payment€fromÏand€after€June€16,€1994,€the€thirtieth€day€following€theÏsettlement.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€and€assessed€to€theÏAppellee.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.à àÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌ________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.€€