O.C.G.A. § 23-2-27 (2019)
Equitable interference not authorized by mere ignorance of law
Mere ignorance of the law on the part of the party himself, where the facts are all known and there is no misplaced confidence and no artifice, deception, or fraudulent practice is used by the other party either to induce the mistake of law or to prevent its correction, shall not authorize the intervention of equity.
History
Orig. Code 1863, § 3054; Code 1868, § 3066; Code 1873, § 3121; Code 1882, § 3121; Civil Code 1895,
§ 3978; Civil Code 1910, § 4575; Code 1933, § 37-209.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS O.C.G.A. § 23-2-27 does not prevent the granting of relief when all the facts are not known by reason of the
fraud of one of the parties. Wellborn v. Johnson, 204 Ga. 389, 50 S.E.2d 16 (1948). O.C.G.A. § 23-2-27 has no applica-
tion to a mutual mistake of law by both parties. Superior Ins. Co. v. Dawkins, 229 Ga. App. 45, 494 S.E.2d 208 (1997). Because a mutual mistake of law was not a valid reason to nullify the parties’ choice of Delaware law in order to uphold a right of first refusal, the parties’ settlement agreement was not subject to reformation due to an alleged mutual mistake. Thus, under Delaware law, the right was properly declared invalid under the rule against perpetuities. CS-Lakeview at Gwinnett, Inc. v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc., 283 Ga. 426, 659 S.E.2d 359 (2008). Equitable relief requires inequitable conduct by other party. - Equity has jurisdiction to reform a written instrument when there has been ignorance or mistake on the part of one of the parties, accompanied by fraud or inequitable conduct on the part of the other party. Wellborn v. Johnson, 204 Ga. 389, 50 S.E.2d 16 (1948). If the fraud or inequitable conduct complained of consists of an alleged misrepresentation of fact, it is immaterial whether the party making the misrepresentation knows it to be false or not; it is nonethe-
less fraud in law, even though not fraud in fact. Wellborn v. Johnson, 204 Ga. 389, 50 S.E.2d 16 (1948). A simple mistake by a party as to the legal effect of an agreement which one executes, or as to the legal result of an act which one performs, is no ground for either defensive or affirmative relief. Robbins v. National Bank, 241 Ga. 538, 246 S.E.2d 660 (1978). Mistake in opinion or mental conclusion not ground for relief. - Mistake of a past or present fact may warrant equitable relief, but a mistake in opinion or mental conclusion as to an uncertain future event is not ground for relief. Atkinson v. Atkinson, 254 Ga. 70, 326 S.E.2d 206 (1985). Cited in Sapp v. Ritch, 169 Ga. 33, 149 S.E. 636 (1929); Paris v. Treadaway, 173 Ga. 639, 160 S.E. 797 (1931); Dunson v. First Nat’l Bank, 175 Ga. 79, 164 S.E. 815 (1932); Nalley v. New York Life Ins. Co., 48 F. Supp. 470 (N.D. Ga. 1943); Wood v. Claxton, 199 Ga. 809, 35 S.E.2d 455 (1945); Stein Steel & Supply Co. v. K. & L. Enters., Inc., 97 Ga. App. 71, 102 S.E.2d 99 (1958).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 27 Am. Jur. 2d, Equity, § 34. C.J.S. - 30 C.J.S., Equity, § 44 et seq. ALR. - Ignorance of legal right to avoid contract or conveyance made during infancy as affecting ratification thereof upon attaining majority, 5 A.L.R. 137. Right to cancellation in equity of an instrument not invalid on its face in which
one is named as a party without his consent, 51 A.L.R. 867. Misrepresentation as to tax law as within rule that party to contract or other instrument may not rely upon misrepresentations as to matters of law, 153 A.L.R. 538. Misrepresentation as to matters of foreign law as actionable, 24 A.L.R.2d 1039.