## Facts

- Catherine H. Vadney executed a deed conveying her Albany property to herself and her son, Peter J. Vadney.
- The deed did not state the type of tenancy and contained no survivorship language.
- After Catherine’s death, her will was admitted to probate, and Peter served as executor.
- Peter excluded the property from the estate inventory, claiming the deed created a joint tenancy and that he took full title by survivorship.
- Catherine’s other children argued the deed created a tenancy in common under EPTL 6-2.2(a), so Catherine’s share passed under the will to all surviving children.
- Peter sought equitable reformation of the deed, alleging the missing survivorship language resulted from scrivener’s error contrary to Catherine’s intent.

## Issues

1. Whether a deed lacking survivorship language may be reformed, despite EPTL 6-2.2(a)’s presumption of a tenancy in common, upon clear and convincing proof of grantor intent to create a joint tenancy and scrivener’s error.
2. Whether extrinsic evidence is admissible in a reformation proceeding to show the deed failed to express the grantor’s actual intent.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division.
- The court held Peter proved by clear and convincing evidence that Catherine intended a joint tenancy and that survivorship language was omitted by the scrivener.
- The deed was properly reformed to create a joint tenancy with right of survivorship.
- As surviving joint tenant, Peter took full title, and the property was properly excluded from the probate estate.

## Legal Principles

- Under EPTL 6-2.2(a), a conveyance to two or more persons creates a tenancy in common unless it is expressly declared to be a joint tenancy.
- Equitable reformation is available to correct a deed that fails to reflect the parties’ agreement when there is clear and convincing proof of (1) actual intent and (2) a mistake in expression, including scrivener’s error.
- In a reformation action, extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove the writing does not reflect the intended transaction; this does not impermissibly vary an unambiguous instrument because the claim is that the instrument is inaccurate.
- The clear and convincing evidence standard governs efforts to reform written conveyances that would otherwise be enforced as drafted.

## Conclusion

The court held that the statutory presumption favoring tenancies in common governs the deed as written, but it does not bar reformation where clear and convincing extrinsic evidence shows the grantor intended a joint tenancy and survivorship language was omitted by drafting mistake.


Matter of Estate of Vadney, 83 N.Y.2d 885, 634 N.E.2d 976 (N.Y. 1994)