In Engebrecht v. Shelton (1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 151, the defendants purchased real property from the plaintiff in 1940. (Id. at p. 154 .) Since the note and deed of trust differed from the parties' agreement, the trial court issued a judgment reforming the note and deed of trust due to the parties' mutual mistake. (Id. at pp. 152-153.) The defendant argued that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. (Id. at p. 154.) However, though the note and deed of trust had been in the plaintiff's possession for several years before he filed his action in June 1944, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff did not discover the mistake until February 1944 and consequently the action was timely. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal also rejected the defendants' argument. Engebrecht reasoned that "'whether the failure to discover a mistake in a written document is inexcusable negligence so as to bar a party from the right to reformation is a question of fact for the trial court. "It has been frequently decided that the mere failure of a party to read an instrument with sufficient attention to perceive an error or defect in its contents will not prevent its reformation at the instance of the party who executes it carelessly." '" (Id. at pp. 154-155.)