Cited by

Courts may grant reformation only when the evidence is clear and convincing that the written instrument does not express the true agreement of the parties.

While the trial court did not expressly articulate the standard it employed in making its rulings, we assume that the trial court applied the proper standard, see Grabowski v. Grabowski, 120 N.H. 745, 748 (1980), and upon review of the record, conclude that the evidence supports the trial court’s order.

Although he recognizes that parol evidence is generally inadmissible to vary or contradict a writing, he argues, citing Grabowski v. Grabowski, 120 N.H. 745, 748 (1980), that it should have been admitted here “to establish that the writing itself does not reflect the actual agreement reached by the parties.” The first step in determining whether parol evidence is admissible is to consider whether the writing is a total integration and completely expresses the agreement of

It is well established that courts may grant reformation in proper cases where the instrument fails to express the intentions that the parties had in making the contract.

Rather, such a property distribution “will not be modified unless the complaining party shows that the distribution is invalid due to fraud, undue influence, deceit, misrepresentation, or mutual mistake.” Shafmaster v. Shafmaster, 138 N.H. 460, 464, 642 A.2d 1361, 1364 (1994); see Grabowski v. Grabowski, 120 N.H. 745, 747, 422 A.2d 1040, 1042 (1980); Durkin v. Durkin, 119 N.H. 41, 42, 397 A.2d 304, 304 (1979).

As the trial court stated in its order, it was “unpersuaded by Arcidy’s testimony that McCabe’s charges would only go up to a maximum of $25,000.00 per month based on reasonable hourly rates.” “[T]he credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given evidence are questions to be determined by the trial court.” Grabowski v. Grabowski, 120 N.H. 745, 749, 422 A.2d 1040, 1043 (1980).

Grabowski v. Grabowski, 120 N.H. 745, 747, 422 A.2d 1040, 1042 (1980); Durkin v. Durkin, 119 N.H. 41, 42, 397 A.2d 304, 304 (1979).

For this reason, in marital cases, as in the business world, modification of interests thought to be vested is not permitted in the absence of fraud, undue influence, deceit or misrepresentation, Durkin v. Durkin, 119 N.H. 41, 397 *454 A.2d 304 (1979), or mutual mistake, Grabowski v. Grabowski, 120 N.H. 745, 422 A.2d 1040 (1980).

Dubois v. Dubois, 121 N.H. 664, 668, 433 A.2d 1277, 1280 (1981); Grabowski v. Grabowski, 120 N.H. 745, 747, 422 A.2d 1040, 1042 (1980).

Douglas v. Douglas, 109 N.H. 41, 43, 242 A.2d 78, 80 (1968), although reformation may be had for mutual mistake.

The court has the authority, however, to modify a decree incorporating a property settlement where it appears that the “stipulation was signed due to fraud, undue influence, deceit, or misrepresentation,” Durkin v. Durkin, 119 N.H. 41, 42, 397 A.2d 304, 304 (1979), or where the stipulation does not reflect the true intent of the par *669 ties, Grabowski v. Grabowski, 120 N.H. 745, 747, 422 A.2d 1040, 1042 (1980).

Grabowski v. Grabowski, 120 N.H. 745, 748, 422 A.2d 1040, 1042 (1980); Chabot v. Shiner, 95 N.H. 252, 255, 61 A.2d 791, 793 (1948).

Equity § 682, at 859 (1965); cf. Grabowski v. Grabowski, 120 N.H. 745, 747, 422 A.2d 1040, 1042 (1980).