Cal. Codes » Civil Code / DIVISION 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS / PART 1. RELIEF / TITLE 3. SPECIFIC AND PREVENTIVE RELIEF / CHAPTER 2. Specific Relief / ARTICLE 4. Revision of Contracts
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 3399 (2026)

Revision of Contracts

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When, through fraud or 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 on the application of a party aggrieved, so as to express that intention, so far as it can be done without prejudice to rights acquired by third persons, in good faith and for value.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 107 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1884–2026 · leading case: Rosenfeld v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 732 F. Supp. 2d 952 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rosenfeld v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 732 F. Supp. 2d 952 (N.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 4× “§ 1635 ; Reformation under California Civil Code sections 3399 and 1670.”
Hess v. Ford Motor Co., 41 P.3d 46 (Cal. 2002). · cites it 2× “(Civ.Code, § 3399 [court may reform an agreement for mutual mistake if the reformation does not prejudice "rights acquired by third persons .”
R & B Auto Ctr., Inc. v. Farmers Grp., Inc., 140 Cal. App. 4th 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “[10] Civil Code section 3399 provides: "When, through fraud or 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 on the application…”
Ike v. Doolittle, 61 Cal. App. 4th 51 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “Civil Code section 3399 codifies the equitable action for reformation and permits a court in equity to reform a trust based on mistake As we have discussed, the court reformed sections 1 and 2 of article nine of the Trust under the authority of Civil Code section 3399 to correct…”
Getty v. Getty, 187 Cal. App. 3d 1159 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “Does Ronald Have Standing to Seek Reformation? California Civil Code section 3399 codifies the equitable action for reformation.”
Komorsky v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 33 Cal. App. 5th 960 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “" Civil Code section 3399 provides, "When, through fraud or 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 on the application of…”
Jolley v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 213 Cal. App. 4th 872 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “The Eighth Cause of Action, for Reformation Civil Code section 3399 provides the authority upon which a contract may be reformed: “When, through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties, or a mistake of one party, which the other at the time knew or suspected, a written contract…”
Giammarrusco v. Simon, 171 Cal. App. 4th 1586 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “[¶] “Civil Code section 3399 provides: ‘'When contract may be revised.”
People v. Super.Ct. (Sanchez), 223 Cal. App. 4th 567 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, § 3399.) “When, through ... a mutual mistake of the parties .”
Spiegler v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 552 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2008). · cites it 3× “-, (3) breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (4) reformation of contract pursuant to Cal. Civ.Code § 3399. On or about October 31, 2006, plaintiff Spiegler entered into a written contract with the Home Depot defendants.”
Alfaro v. Cmty. Hous. Improvement Sys. & Plan. Assn., Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 1356 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). “Civil Code section 3399 authorizes reformation of an instrument “[w]hen, through fraud or 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 .”
Pac. State Bank v. Greene, 110 Cal. App. 4th 375 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “) Defendants’ answer to the complaint additionally appears to claim unilateral mistake.”
Show all 107 citing cases →
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.