Balistreri

Appellants signed a deed of trust in favor of respondent, in order to help their son get a loan from respondent. Appellants believed that the deed of trust covered the house in Sebastopol which they owned together with their son, and where their son resided. Appellants’ belief was consistent with the cover letter to the deed of trust which respondent sent to appellants, which described the deed of trust as covering “your Sebastopol *638 residence for your son . . . .’’In fact the deed of trust described appellants’ own residence in Petaluma as the real property which would become encumbered thereby. When respondent threatened to foreclose on appellants’ home, appellants discovered the error; and they brought this action to quiet title and cancel the deed of trust based upon mistake of fact in its execution. The trial court found the facts as above stated; but the trial court concluded that relief was barred as a matter of law based upon the principle of neglect of legal duty, since appellants should have read the text of the deed of trust, not just the cover letter, and should have discovered the mistake in time. We reverse.

I. Facts and Procedural History

Appellants’…

I concur solely on the ground that the appellants’ encumbrance of their Petaluma home was a unilateral mistake induced by the action of respondent. It was respondent Nevada Livestock Production *645 Credit Association’s misleading statement contained in its cover letter to the deed of trust that led to appellants’ mistaken execution of that document. (Van Meter v. Bent Construction Co. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 588, 593-595 [ 297 P.2d 644 ]; Architects & Contractors Estimating Service, Inc. v. Smith (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 1001, 1007-1008 [ 211 Cal.Rptr. 45 ]; cf. Waters v. Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 635, 641 [ 237 Cal.Rptr. 546 ].)

A petition for a rehearing was denied Obtober 30, 1989.

Appellants signed a deed of trust in favor of respondent, in order to help their son get a loan from respondent. Appellants believed that the deed of trust covered the house in Sebastopol which they owned together with their son, and where their son resided. Appellants' belief was consistent with the cover letter to the deed of trust which respondent sent to appellants, which described the deed of trust as covering "your Sebastopol residence for your son...." In fact the deed of trust described appellants' own residence in Petaluma as the real property which would become encumbered thereby. When respondent threatened to foreclose on appellants' home, appellants discovered the error; and they brought this action to quiet title and cancel the deed of trust based upon mistake of fact in its execution. The trial court found the facts as above stated; but the trial court concluded that relief was barred as a matter of law based upon the principle of neglect of legal duty, since appellants should have read the text of the deed of trust, not just the cover letter, and should have discovered the mistake in time. We reverse.

Appellants' son sought crop financing…