What standard of evidence is required to reform a governing instrument to reflect the transferor's intention when there was a mistake?

• A. Clear and convincing evidence
• B. Preponderance of the evidence
• C. Beyond a reasonable doubt
• D. Substantial evidence

Answer: (A)

Reformation of a governing instrument to reflect the transferor’s actual intent when a mistake occurred is an equitable remedy that requires a high level of proof. The standard used is clear and convincing evidence. This level sits above mere plausibility or balance of probabilities because rewriting a document to reflect what wasn’t actually written involves a serious change in the instrument’s terms and consequences.

Why this is the best fit: clear and convincing evidence means the proof must be highly credible and solid, showing that the instrument does not express the true intent due to a mistake, and what the correct intention was. It protects against overturning a written document based on weak or ambiguous evidence, while still allowing correction where there’s trustworthy proof of what was intended.

Why the other standards don’t fit here: beyond a reasonable doubt is the criminal standard and is far too stringent for civil remedies like reformation. Preponderance of the evidence is the usual civil standard, but it’s not strong enough for a remedy that effectively changes the instrument’s terms. Substantial evidence is typically used in administrative or quasi-judicial contexts and isn’t the standard applied to private reformation claims.