Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 8-1-2 (2026)
Written Contract Not Expressing Parties’ Intent May Be Revised.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
When, through fraud, a mutual mistake of the parties or a mistake of one party which the other at the time knew or suspected, a written contract does not truly express the intention of the parties, it may be revised by a court on the application of the party aggrieved so as to express that intention, so far as it can be done without prejudice to the rights acquired by third persons in good faith and for value.
(Code 1923, §6825; Code 1940, T. 9, §59.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: Alabama Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Hunt, 519 So. 2d 480 (Ala. 1987).
Alabama Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Hunt, 519 So. 2d 480 (Ala. 1987). “We affirm the judgment reforming a general release, pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 8-1-2, to reflect "the true intention of the parties," a pro tanto release.”
Har-Mar Collisions, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 212 So. 3d 892 (Ala. 2016). “Discussion “In Alabama, reformation of contracts is governed by § 8-1-2, Ala.Code 1975; that Code section provides: “‘When, through fraud, a mutual mistake of the parties or a mistake of one party which the other at the time knew or suspected, a written contract does not truly…”
Pullum v. Pullum, 58 So. 3d 752 (Ala. 2010). “1991); § 8-1-2, Ala. Code 1975. Generally, a unilateral mistake is not a ground for reformation.”
Brown v. Butts, 214 So. 3d 1181 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). “Procedural History On May 28, 2013, the Buttses filed a complaint against the Browns, seeking, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 8-1-2, to reform the contract that they had entered into with the Browns.”
Simmons v. Cong. Life Ins., 791 So. 2d 360 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998). “” However, § 8-1-2 has no application to the unilateral mistakes of contracting parties.”
Conley v. Beaver, 437 So. 2d 1267 (Ala. 1983). “, supra, the majority, as well as the Justices concurring, clearly stated that appellants could have petitioned to reform the release to express the true intent of the parties pursuant to § 8-1-2, Code 1975. Rather, in the prior case, they sought a partial revocation as to the…”
Ford Motor Co. v. Neese, 572 So. 2d 1255 (Ala. 1990). “See Ala. Code 1975, § 8-1-2. In support of the contention that there was no mutual mistake, Ford points to a portion of Charles Mann's testimony: "Q.”
Conley v. Harry J. Whelchel Co., 410 So. 2d 14 (Ala. 1982). “Furthermore, appellant could have requested reformation of the release, pursuant to Code of 1975, § 8-1-2, to express the true intention of the parties.”
Payne v. Mut. Sav. Life Ins. Co., 58 So. 3d 108 (Ala. 2010). “Payne subsequently amended his complaint to add a claim for reformation of the policy pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 8-1-2. Mutual answered the initial complaint and filed a motion for a judgment on the pleadings, which the trial court granted.”
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. v. Guster Law Firm, LLC, 944 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (N.D. Ala. 2013). “” Ala.Code § 8-1-2. However, the party seeking reformation must show a “mutual misunderstanding concerning a' basic assumption on which the contract was made.”
Commonwealth Land Title Ins. v. Ozark Global, L.C., 956 F. Supp. 989 (S.D. Ala. 1997). “Alternatively, in count two, Commonwealth seeks reformation of the title insurance policy, pursuant to Ala.Code § 8-1-2 (1975), because of alleged mutual or unilateral mistake made in failing to list the six tax liens as coverage exceptions on the policy form.”
Irvin v. Griffin Corp., 808 F.2d 802 (11th Cir. 1987). “Ala.Code § 8-1-2 (1975). Without questioning the good faith of appellees, it is clear that they have paid nothing by way of value for the “benefits” which they received fortuitously from the general release.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.