## Facts

- Donald Sundgaard and Janice Lundgren began a romantic relationship in 2004; each had children from prior marriages.
- They generally kept their finances and assets separate and repeatedly expressed that their respective property should pass to their own children.
- In 2008, they bought a home together, each contributing equal funds, and took title by a recorded warranty deed that reflected joint tenancy.
- In 2012, as Donald’s health declined, Donald and Janice executed a transfer-on-death deed (TODD).
- The TODD provided that, upon the death of the last to die of Donald and Janice, Donald’s son Scott Sundgaard would receive an undivided one-half interest in the home and Janice’s two sons would receive the other undivided one-half interest, as tenants in common.
- Their lawyer explained the TODD as a way for Donald and Janice to remain in the home during their lifetimes, with the property then passing to the sons under the TODD.
- Donald died in 2014, and Janice continued to live in the home.
- After Donald’s death, Scott and Janice both assumed Scott had succeeded to Donald’s half interest.
- In 2015, following a dispute with Scott, Janice executed a revocation of the TODD that eliminated Scott’s interest.
- Scott sued in Morrison County District Court, seeking relief that included reformation of the recorded warranty deed to reflect the parties’ alleged intent that they owned the property as tenants in common rather than joint tenants.
- The district court reformed the warranty deed to tenancy in common and addressed whether Janice’s revocation could defeat Scott’s claimed interest under the TODD.
- Janice appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals (unpublished decision).

## Issues

1. Did the district court err by reforming the recorded warranty deed from joint tenancy to tenancy in common based on the parties’ intent and mistake in the instrument?
2. After reformation and Donald’s death, was Janice’s revocation of the TODD effective to eliminate Scott’s interest in the property, or could it operate only on Janice’s own share?

## Decision

- The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The court held the district court did not clearly err in finding that Donald and Janice intended to hold the home as tenants in common, and that reformation of the warranty deed was proper.
- The court agreed that Janice’s later revocation of the TODD could not extinguish the transfer tied to Donald’s ownership interest after his death; at most, her revocation could affect only her own interest.

## Legal Principles

- A court may reform a deed or other written instrument when clear evidence shows the writing fails to reflect the parties’ actual agreement because of mistake, including mutual mistake.
- Whether the evidence proves the parties’ intent and the existence of mistake is primarily a fact question; appellate review gives deference to the district court’s supported fact findings (clear-error review).
- Joint tenancy includes a survivorship feature; tenancy in common does not, and each co-owner’s fractional interest can pass separately.
- Under Minnesota’s transfer-on-death deed framework, an owner’s revocation generally affects only the revoking owner’s transfer; one co-owner cannot revoke or defeat the other owner’s transfer after that other owner has died.

## Conclusion

In this deed-reformation dispute between Donald’s son and Donald’s surviving partner, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment reforming a recorded joint-tenancy warranty deed to a tenancy in common to match the couple’s intent that each family line would receive one-half of the home. With that ownership structure in place, Janice’s later revocation of the transfer-on-death deed could not eliminate Scott’s entitlement connected to Donald’s one-half interest after Donald’s death, and the district court’s resolution was affirmed.


Sundgaard v. Lundgren, 2019 WL 3000710 (2019)