ÿWPCg âlsæÞ¼çç] ¬/‰½»n×vš¤ß­Ú•çM®7¿ÝG×õù:[êdLœ¥Ay“3íò ƒl™=ü~ò^èµ”së9Ù?šÐ¥RÅ ¾´­å„Å^­°hO¢v"xãà,ú¨Þ·¨Ÿ&Ózq¨oµüwv=¾³R†ë5ìZú‘ó+ÞH®.ÏõF'kÒB»OÇåÅ«ûE#½»A·t÷AN†úÀêo¡õÐ"w}ÚˆsKò7ž°²|SÓ]æ©KÄopò3̧<8"ÒÉmL?üó{Š‚6Mã8x­Z¸9Lùsq,æ}JØFÛÔ o,XIe Zt k„6’,¬ ^ß5›PX:<ÌËÅ oð²ƒ\JQJˆ¿×K÷ºê48P4wzô<¿à¸oy רi% 7Sádgtʰ×Ī€0š?‰ösþÁ(锥u¶CNYÒ:8HÅY9tÚ÷5ž]ÌëDÛúà›.JXj?óú¯f`‘¡6}(ϛ˜µ½ÂšÎsŠÍhdá3¸ ´ÕhEqâ-Šð~Œ¨^*…$é†Ï ¿úòû…­;ùçéËá•U¢f—sºèOòVgÜ£aob#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz $‘ ƵÆ{ÆAÆ 0DÍNñE UNb\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 0ëdddd BOO 0¤l D3 D-C 0Kpp AS»Æ 0¤Ô 0Dx A«¼˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0»cjV+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularòK+ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒRÙ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô<Á ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€appellantsðð€brief€states€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôn]oÔ_Ô€one€can€positively€say€that€Mr.€York€ever€delivered€the€deed€to€EthelÐ ° ÐYork.ðð€€This€is€not€an€accurate€statement€of€the€evidence.€€Luella€Ô_ÔSpriggsÔ_Ô€testified€that€Mr.€York€delivered€the€deed€toÐ tÄ ÐEthel,€although€she€was€not€sure€whether€the€delivery€occurred€at€the€hospital€or€later€when€Mr.€York€was€in€a€nursingÐ 8ˆ Ðhome.€€Despite€her€uncertainty€as€to€the€site€of€the€delivery,€Ms.€Ô_ÔSpriggsÔ_Ôðð€testimony€clearly€establishes€that€delivery€didÐ üL Ðoccur.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó çÝ ƒRÙ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô<Á ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMs.€Ô_ÔSizemoreÔ_Ô€is€deceased;€her€estate€was€not€made€a€party€to€this€action. (ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù-(|G2Ù$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€PÔ»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô:ò»»Ô d(|3Ž$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€PÔ»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ž$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€PÔ»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€S„»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼”Y»»»ÔÑ8€5„XXdê»»d 8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàԇ”YÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼”Y»î #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJuly€13,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XŵX»¼”YÔÌò òÔ#†¼”Y»XXŵò#ÔPEGGY€J.€LANE,€òòet€al.óó€v.€LUELLA€SPRIGGS,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XŵX»¼”YÔó óÐ úJ ÐÓ¼ÓÌà@N N ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Cocke€CountyˆÐ ú J Ðà@À À ìàNo.€98„113€€€€€€Telford€E.€Forgety,€Jr.,€ChancellorˆÐ æ 6 ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àFILED€OCTOBER€19,€2001Ð ¾   Ðà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` A߈Ð ªú  ÐÌà@¶¶ìàNo.€E2001„00163„COA„R3„CV€ˆÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌThis€case€involves€the€validity€of€an€unsigned€warranty€deed€in€the€plaintiffsðð€chain€of€title.€Ð xÈ  ÐFollowing€a€bench€trial,€the€court€below€reformed€the€deed€to€add€the€missing€signature.€€Ô#†¼”Y»XXŵs#ÔÔ‡XŵX»¼”YÔTheÐ d´ Ðdefendants€appeal,€arguing,€among€other€things,€that€the€unsigned€deed€is€inoperative€and€cannot€beÐ P  Ðreformed.€€We€affirm.Ð <Œ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ d ÐAffirmed;€Case€Remandedó óÐ P ÐÓ±ÓÌòòÔ#†¼”Y»àXŵÔ#ÔÔ‡XŵX.¼”YÔCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Goddard,Ð Ø( ÐP.J.,óó€and€òòD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌDouglas€E.€Taylor,€Sevierville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Luella€Spriggs€and€Alvin€C.€York.Ð œì ÐÌP.€Richard€Talley,€Dandridge,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Peggy€J.€Lane€and€husband,€Johnny€R.Ð tÄ ÐLane.Ð `° ÐÌò òÓ  ÓOPINIONó óÔ#†¼”Y»XXŵ}#ÔÔ‡XŵX»¼”YÔÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÓc ÓÌòòóóÔ#†¼”Y»XXŵœ #ÔÔ€XŵX»¼”YÔÓ  ÓI.Ð #`" ÐÓ) ÓÌà  àThe€basic€facts€of€this€case€are€not€in€dispute.€€The€12„acre€tract€at€issue€was€originally€partÐ è$8 $ Ðof€a€farm€owned€by€Will€York.€€In€1981,€Mr.€York€had€a€survey€prepared€in€order€to€divide€the€farmÐ Ô%$!% Ðinto€four€unequal€tracts,€and€he€hired€an€attorney€to€prepare€four€warranty€deeds€for€the€purpose€ofÐ À&"& Ðconveying€a€tract€to€each€of€Mr.€Yorkððs€three€children€ð!ð€Ethel€York€Sizemore׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€the€defendantsÐ ¬'ü"' ÐAlvin€C.€York€and€Luella€Spriggs€ð!ð€and€to€his€granddaughter,€Marline€York.€€Included€in€each€deedÐ ˜(è#( Ðis€a€copy€of€the€survey€dividing€the€farm€into€four€tracts;€each€tract€in€the€survey€is€labeled€with€theÐ „)Ô$) Ðname€of€the€intended€grantee.€€All€of€the€deeds€contain€an€acknowledgment€by€a€notary€public€datedÐ p*À%* ÐJanuary€5,€1982,€stating€that€Mr.€York€had€personally€appeared€before€the€notary€and€hadÐ \+¬&+ý Ðacknowledged€that€he€executed€the€deeds.€€Only€three€of€the€deeds,€however,€are€actually€signed€byÐ ° ÐMr.€York.€€The€deed€to€Ethel€York,€while€notarized,€is€not€signed.Ð œì ÐÌà  àMr.€York€retained€the€deeds€for€four€years€in€a€wooden€box€in€his€bedroom€closet.€€InÐ tÄ ÐJanuary,€1986,€while€hospitalized€for€an€illness,€Mr.€York€asked€his€daughter€Luella€to€retrieve€theÐ `° Ðdeeds€and€bring€them€to€the€hospital.€€After€examining€the€deeds€for€approximately€thirty€minutes,Ð L œ ÐMr.€York€asked€Luella€to€take€them€to€the€courthouse€and€have€them€recorded.€€He€informed€her€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€purpose€of€the€deeds€was€to€convey€the€family€farm€to€her,€Alvin,€Ethel,€and€Marline.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àAfter€the€deeds€were€recorded,€they€were€retained€by€Luella.€€At€the€request€of€Mr.€York,Ð ü L  ÐLuella€gave€Alvin€and€Marline€their€respective€deeds.€€Luella€kept€Ethelððs€deed,€since€the€latter€livedÐ è 8  Ðin€Ohio.€€Later,€Ethel€came€to€Tennessee,€at€which€time€Mr.€York€took€the€deed€from€Luella€andÐ Ô$  Ðdelivered€it€to€Ethel.€€Mr.€York€died€in€1987.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð À  ÐÌà  àAlvin,€Marline,€and€Luella€immediately€took€possession€of€their€respective€properties.€€WhileÐ ˜è  Ðnever€occupying€her€12„acre€tract,€Ethel€paid€the€property€taxes€and€allowed€a€nephew€to€live€on€theÐ „Ô  Ðland,€although€it€is€unclear€from€the€record€when€and€for€how€long€the€nephew€lived€there.€€SeveralÐ pÀ Ðfamily€members,€including€even€the€defendants,€testified€that€it€was€ð ðcommon€knowledgeðð€amongÐ \¬ Ðthe€family€that€Ethel€owned€the€12€acres€in€question.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àOn€July€18,€1992,€Ethel€conveyed€by€warranty€deed€the€12„acre€tract€to€the€plaintiffs,€PeggyÐ  p ÐJ.€Lane€and€her€husband,€Johnny€R.€Lane.€€The€evidence€reflects€that€the€defendants€were€aware€ofÐ  \ Ðthis€transaction.€€In€1997,€however,€Luella€learned€that€the€deed€from€Mr.€York€to€Ethel€had€not€beenÐ øH Ðsigned€by€Mr.€York.€€She€and€Alvin€retained€an€attorney,€who€contacted€the€plaintiffs€and€told€themÐ ä4 Ðthat€their€ownership€of€the€property€was€subject€to€question.€€Thereafter,€the€plaintiffs€brought€thisÐ Ð  Ðaction,€seeking€a€declaration€as€to€their€interest€in€the€subject€property.€€In€their€amended€complaint,Ð ¼  Ðthe€plaintiffs€asked€the€court€to€find€that€the€failure€of€Mr.€York€to€sign€the€deed€was€ð ðan€inadvertentÐ ¨ø Ðclerical€errorðð€and€requested€that€the€clerical€error€be€cured.€€They€also€asserted,€as€alternative€basesÐ ”ä Ðfor€relief,€(1)€that€they€had€acquired€the€property€by€adverse€possession€and€(2)€that€the€defendantsÐ €Ð Ðwere€barred€by€estoppel€and€laches€from€questioning€the€validity€of€the€deed€to€Ethel.€€TheÐ l¼ Ðdefendants€answered,€alleging€that€the€deed€purporting€to€convey€the€12„acre€tract€to€Ethel€wasÐ X ¨ Ðinoperative€and€that,€therefore,€upon€the€death€of€Mr.€York,€the€tract€passed€to€his€three€children€byÐ D!” Ðintestacy,€with€each€receiving€a€one„third€interest€in€the€12€acres.€€In€their€amended€answer,€theÐ 0"€  Ðdefendants€also€asserted,€among€other€things,€that€the€deed€violated€the€Statute€of€Frauds.€€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àFollowing€a€bench€trial,€the€court€below€found€in€favor€of€the€plaintiffs,€citing€ð ðseveralÐ ô$D # Ðâ âreasons.ðð€€The€court€found€the€doctrine€of€estoppel€applicable,€and€it€noted€that€the€plaintiffs€hadÐ à%0!$ Ðsatisfied€the€requirements€for€adverse€possession.€€Ultimately,€however,€the€trial€court€concluded€asÐ ° Ðfollows:Ð œì Ðâ âÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[Q]uite€honestly€the€Court€has€found€that€the€evidence€is€clear,€cogentÐ tÄ Ðand€convincing.€€I€think€that€this€was€absolutely€without€question€aÐ `° Ðmistake€pure€and€simple€on€the€part€of€Will€York;€that€he€absolutelyÐ L œ Ðmeant€to€sign€that€deed€and€it€was€a€mistake€that€he€didnððt,€I€canððtÐ 8 ˆ Ðcome€to€any€other€conclusion.€€Where€he€later€delivered€it€andÐ $ t Ðordered€it€to€be€recorded.€€So€I€think€itððs€a€proper€case€to€order€theÐ  ` Ðreformation€of€the€deed€and€that€the€deed€be€reformed€to€reflect,€itÐ ü L  Ðwill€have€the€effect,€the€same€effect€as€if€it€did€bear€the€signature€ofÐ è 8  ÐWill€York.ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌThe€court€rejected€the€defendantsðð€argument€that€the€deed€violated€the€Statute€of€Frauds,€finding€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€contract€had€been€partially€performed.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€defendants€appeal,€arguing€that€the€trial€court€erred€(1)€in€holding€that€the€deed€could€beÐ pÀ Ðreformed;€(2)€in€finding€that€the€plaintiffs€had€acquired€the€property€by€adverse€possession;€(3)€inÐ \¬ Ðholding€that€the€doctrine€of€estoppel€applies;€and€(4)€in€holding€that€the€Statute€of€Frauds€is€notÐ H˜ Ðapplicable.Ð 4„ ÐÌÓ  ÓII.Ð  \ ÐÓƒ#ÓÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àOur€review€in€this€non-jury€case€is€governed€by€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€That€rule€providesÐ ä4 Ðthat€parties€on€appeal€are€entitled€to€a€òòde€novoóó€examination€of€the€record€of€the€proceedings€below;Ð Ð  Ðhowever,€that€record€is€burdened€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€as€to€the€trial€courtððs€factualÐ ¼  Ðfindings€that€must€be€honored€unless€the€ð ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.ðð€€òòò òId.ó óóó;€òòò òUnionÐ ¨ø ÐCarbide€Corp.€v.€Huddleston,ó óóó€854€S.W.2d€87,€91€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€lawÐ ”ä Ðare€also€reviewed€òòde€novoóó,€but€they€are€not€accorded€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòò òCampbell€v.Ð €Ð ÐFlorida€Steel€Corp.,ó óóó€919€S.W.2d€26,€35€(Tenn.€1996).Ð l¼ ÐÌÓÄ#ÓÓ  ÓIII.Ð D!” ÐÓ4'ÓÓ ÓÌà  àGenerally€speaking,€a€deed€must€be€signed€by€the€grantor€and€delivered€to€the€grantee€in€orderÐ #l! Ðto€pass€title€to€land€and€to€be€valid€and€binding€upon€the€parties€and€their€heirs.€€òòSee€óó9€Tenn.€Jur.Ð $X" ÐòòDeeds€óóðð€9€(1993).€€While€the€grantorððs€signature€is€generally€affixed€to€the€end€of€the€instrument,€theÐ ô$D # ÐSupreme€Court€has€recognized€that€the€signature€may€be€found€within€the€deed€itself,€at€least€in€aÐ à%0!$ Ðcase€where€the€deed€was€handwritten€by€the€grantor,€his€name€being€inserted€in€the€deed€ð ðso€as€toÐ Ì&"% Ðcontrol€the€entire€instrument,ðð€and€there€is€evidence€that€the€signature€was€intended€to€be€final.€Ð ¸'#& ÐòòSeeò òSaunders€v.€Hackney,ó óóó€78€Tenn.€(10€Lea)€194,€202€(1882).€€In€the€instant€case,€however,€Mr.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐYork€did€not€sign€the€deed€to€his€daughter€Ethel,€and,€as€the€deed€was€typewritten€and€prepared€byÐ )à$( ÐMr.€Yorkððs€attorney,€the€signature€cannot€be€ð ðfoundðð€within€the€text€of€the€deed€itself€as€inÐ |*Ì%) Ðò òòòSaundersó óóó.€€The€defendants€argue€that€the€deed€is€invalid€for€the€lack€of€the€grantorððs€signature€andÐ h+¸&* Ðcannot€be€reformed;€it€is€the€contention€of€the€plaintiffs€that€the€omission€of€Mr.€Yorkððs€signatureÐ ° Ðwas€a€result€of€a€mutual€mistake€and€that€the€deed€should€be€reformed€to€add€his€signature.Ð œì ÐÌà  àReformation€is€an€equitable€doctrine€by€which€courts€may€correct€a€mistake€in€a€writing€ð ðsoÐ tÄ Ðthat€it€fully€and€accurately€reflects€the€agreement€of€the€parties.ðð€€22€Tenn.€Jur.€òòRescission,Ð `° ÐCancellation€and€Reformationóó€ðð€46€(1999).€€In€order€to€reform€a€writing€on€the€basis€of€mistake,€Ð L œ Ðthere€must€have€been€either€a€mutual€mistake€or€a€unilateral€mistake€induced€by€fraud.€€ò òòòWilliams€v.Ð 8 ˆ ÐBotts,ó óóó€3€S.W.3d€508,€509€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€October€4,€1999.€€ð ðA€ððmistakeððÐ $ t Ðis€an€act€which€would€have€been€done,€or€an€omission€which€would€not€have€occurred,€but€fromÐ  ` Ðignorance,€forgetfulness,€inadvertence,€mental€incompetence,€surprise,€misplaced€confidence,€orÐ ü L  Ðimposition....ðð€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€509„10.€€Reformation€is€appropriate€only€where€the€mistake€or€fraud€is€shownÐ è 8  Ðby€ð ðclear,€cogent,€convincing€evidence.ðð€€ò òòòDixon€v.€Manier,ó óóó€545€S.W.2d€948,€950€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð Ô$  Ð1976).Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€issue€of€whether€a€deed€may€be€reformed€to€supply€a€mistakenly„omitted€signature€ofÐ ˜è  Ðthe€grantor€is€an€issue€that€has€not,€according€to€our€research,€been€addressed€by€an€appellate€courtÐ „Ô  Ðin€Tennessee.€€It€has€been€recognized€in€other€jurisdictions,€however,€that€ð ð[w]here€both€parties€toÐ pÀ Ða€deed€or€contract€have€agreed€that€the€instrument€is€to€be€executed,€the€lack€of€a€partyððs€signatureÐ \¬ Ðcan€be€supplied€by€a€reformation€of€the€document.ðð€€76€C.J.S.€òòReformation€of€Instrumentsóó€ðð€36Ð H˜ Ð(1994);€òòsee€alsoóóò òòòSmith€v.€Royal€Automotive€Group,€Inc.,ó óóó€675€So.€2d€144,€153„54€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.Ð 4„ ÐApp.€1996)€(ð ðGiven€that€equity€regards€as€done€that€which€ought€to€be€done,€there€is€no€compellingÐ  p Ðreason€why€a€court€may€not€reform€a€written€instrument€to€reflect€the€intentions€of€the€parties,Ð  \ Ðincluding€a€partyððs€omitted€signature.ðð)€(citing€76€C.J.S.€òòReformation€of€Instruments€óóðð€36).€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àWe€find€the€Oregon€Court€of€Appealsðð€decision€in€ò òòòAmes€v.€Fallert,ó óóó€657€P.2d€224€(Or.€Ct.Ð Ð  ÐApp.€1983),€to€be€particularly€persuasive€in€the€instant€case.€€In€ò òòòAmesó óóó,€the€parties€were€businessÐ ¼  Ðpartners€who€had€purchased€commercial€property€as€tenants€in€common.€€The€parties€decided€toÐ ¨ø Ðmerge€their€interests€into€one€corporation,€and€a€deed€was€prepared€to€transfer€their€individualÐ ”ä Ðinterest€in€the€commercial€property€to€the€new€corporation.€€The€parties€and€their€wives€met€with€theÐ €Ð Ðbank€manager€handling€their€transaction.€€At€this€meeting,€the€deed€was€signed€by€the€defendant,€hisÐ l¼ Ðwife,€and€the€wife€of€the€plaintiff;€however,€the€plaintiff€did€not€sign€the€deed.€€The€deed€wasÐ X ¨ Ðnotarized€and€the€bank€manager€certified€that€the€four€grantors,€including€the€plaintiff,€had€executedÐ D!” Ðthe€deed€and€acknowledged€to€him€that€they€had€voluntarily€done€so.€€ò òòòó óóóThe€deed€was€laterÐ 0"€  Ðrecorded.ò òòòó óóóFor€the€next€12€years,€the€parties€acted€consistently€with€the€conveyance€of€the€propertyÐ #l! Ðto€the€corporation;€for€example,€the€corporation€paid€all€of€the€taxes€and€the€value€of€the€propertyÐ $X" Ðwas€included€in€determining€the€value€of€the€corporationððs€stock.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àWhen€the€plaintiff€discovered€that€he€had€not€signed€the€deed,€he€brought€suit€seeking€aÐ Ì&"% Ðdeclaration€that€he€had€a€one„half€interest€in€the€property.€€At€trial,€the€plaintiff€testified€that€he€didÐ ¸'#& Ðnot€intend€to€convey€his€interest€in€the€property€to€the€corporation.€€The€trial€court,€however,€foundÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€there€was€ð ðoverwhelming€evidenceðð€of€the€plaintiffððs€intention€to€sign€the€deed€and€convey€theÐ )à$( Ðproperty.€€The€Oregon€Court€of€Appeals€agreed,€holding€that€it€was€ð ðclearðð€that€both€parties€intendedÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€convey€their€interests€to€the€corporation.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€227.€€In€so€holding,€the€Court€noted€that€theÐ h+¸&* Ðplaintiffððs€wife€had€signed€the€deed€for€the€sole€purpose€of€clearing€the€title€of€her€interest,€whichÐ ° Ðshe€had€only€by€virtue€of€her€husbandððs€ownership€of€the€property;€from€this€fact,€the€CourtÐ œì Ðconcluded€that€her€signature€was€consistent€with€an€intent€on€the€part€of€the€plaintiff€to€sign€the€deed.€Ð ˆØ Ðò òòòId.ó óóó€€Furthermore,€the€Court€noted€that€the€bank€officer€who€notarized€the€deed€obviously€thought€thatÐ tÄ Ðthe€plaintiff€had€signed€it,€and€the€Court€inferred€from€this€that€the€plaintiff€had€not€revealed€anyÐ `° Ðintention€at€the€meeting€not€to€sign€the€deed.€€ò òòòId.€€ó óóóFinally,€the€Court€relied€upon€the€fact€that€theÐ L œ Ðparties€had€acted€for€12€years€as€if€their€individual€interests€in€the€property€had€been€conveyed€to€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðcorporation.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Based€upon€these€facts,€the€Court€concluded€that€the€parties€had€intended€to€conveyÐ $ t Ðtheir€interest€to€the€corporation€and€that€the€plaintiffððs€failure€to€sign€the€deed€was€a€result€of€aÐ  ` Ðmutual€mistake.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€The€Court€thus€held€that€the€deed€could€be€reformed€to€add€the€signature€of€theÐ ü L  Ðplaintiff.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€òòò òó óóóÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àAs€in€ò òòòAmesó óóó,€there€is€overwhelming€evidence€in€the€instant€case€to€support€a€finding€that€Mr.Ð À  ÐYork€intended€to€sign€the€deed€and€convey€the€12„acre€tract€to€Ethel.€€Mr.€York€instructed€hisÐ ¬ü  Ðattorney€to€prepare€four€deeds€to€convey€the€four€tracts,€which€together€made€up€his€farm,€to€his€threeÐ ˜è  Ðchildren€and€a€granddaughter.€€The€survey€incorporated€into€the€deeds€indicates€the€four€tracts,€whichÐ „Ô  Ðare€labeled€with€the€names€of€the€intended€grantees,€including€Ethel.€€While€Mr.€York€signed€onlyÐ pÀ Ðthree€of€the€deeds,€all€four€deeds€were€signed,€on€the€same€day,€by€a€notary€public.€€The€notarizationÐ \¬ Ðon€each€deed€states€that€Mr.€York€appeared€before€the€notary€public€and€acknowledged€that€heÐ H˜ Ðexecuted€the€deed.€€Mr.€York€retained€all€four€deeds€in€a€wooden€box,€which,€according€to€hisÐ 4„ Ðchildren,€was€where€he€kept€his€important€papers.€€Four€years€later,€he€told€his€daughter€Luella€thatÐ  p Ðhe€was€conveying€the€tracts€to€her,€Alvin,€Ethel,€and€Marline,€and€he€asked€her€to€record€all€fourÐ  \ Ðdeeds.€€Clearly,€Mr.€Yorkððs€conduct€is€consistent€with€an€intention€to€convey€these€tracts€to€hisÐ øH Ðchildren€and€granddaughter.€€We€also€find€it€significant€that€following€the€conveyance,€Mr.€YorkððsÐ ä4 Ðchildren€acted€consistently€with€their€fatherððs€division€of€the€farm€among€them,€and€that€no€oneÐ Ð  Ðobjected€to€Ethelððs€conveyance€of€the€12„acre€tract€to€the€plaintiffs.€€Under€the€particular€facts€of€thisÐ ¼  Ðcase,€we€find€the€evidence€clear,€cogent,€and€convincing€that€Mr.€York€intended€to€convey€theÐ ¨ø Ðsubject€property€to€Ethel€òòandóó€that€he€carried€that€intention€into€effect€by€having€the€deed€recordedÐ ”ä Ðand€delivered€to€his€daughter.€€His€failure€to€sign€the€deed€was€the€result€of€a€mutual€mistake.€€WeÐ €Ð Ðtherefore€hold€that€the€deed€may€be€reformed€to€add€the€signature€of€Mr.€York.€€The€trial€court€isÐ l¼ Ðaffirmed€as€to€this€issue.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌÓi'ÓÓ  ÓIV.Ð 0"€  ÐÓÜLÓÓ)ÓÌà  àThe€defendants€argue€that€the€unsigned€deed€cannot€be€given€effect€because€it€falls€withinÐ $X" Ðthe€Statute€of€Frauds,€T.C.A.€ðð€29„2„101(a)€(2000),€which€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àNo€action€shall€be€brought...[u]pon€any€contract€for€the€sale€of€land,Ð Ì&"% Ðtenements,€or€hereditament...unless€the€promise€or€agreement,€uponÐ ¸'#& Ðwhich€action€shall€be€brought,€or€some€memorandum€or€note€thereof,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðshall€be€in€writing,€and€signed€by€the€party€to€be€charged€therewith,Ð )à$( Ðor€some€other€person€lawfully€authorized€by€such€party.Ð|*Ì%)` x` x ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐWe€disagree.€€As€we€have€held€that€the€deed€should€be€reformed€to€add€the€missing€signature€of€theÐ ° Ðgrantor,€we€conclude€that€the€deed€does€not€run€afoul€of€the€Statute€of€Frauds.Ð œì Ðà  àÌà  àHaving€held€that€the€trial€court€correctly€reformed€the€deed€to€supply€the€missing€signatureÐ tÄ Ðof€the€grantor,€we€need€not€reach€the€issues€of€estoppel€and€adverse€possession€raised€by€the€parties.Ð `° Ѐ€Ð L œ ÐÓMÓÓ  ÓV.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÓ RÓÓ ÓÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€This€case€is€remanded€for€collection€of€costsÐ  ` Ðassessed€below,€pursuant€to€applicable€law.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellants,€LuellaÐ ü L  ÐSpriggs€and€Alvin€C.€York.Ð è 8  ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________Ð ¬ü  ÐÓ?RÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGE