survivor benefits under the federal Civil Service Retirement System, even after their divorce. Without reaching the question, this Court has opined that it is not clear that a mutual mistake of law “would be grounds for relief in Maryland.” Ferrero Constr. Co. v. Dennis Rourke Corp., 311 Md. 560, 578 n. 8, 536 A.2d 1137, 1145 n. 8 (1988); see also Hoffman v. Chapman, 182 Md. 208, 213, 34 A.2d 438, 441 (1943) (noting that “[t]he general rule is accepted in Maryland that a mistake of law in the making of an agreement is not a ground for reformation”). The rule that a mistake of law is not grounds for rescission is founded on the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse. American Bldg. & Loan Ass’n, 150 S.W.2d at 1065. See also Burggraff v. Baum, 720 A.2d 1167, 1169 (Me.1998) (<HOLDING>). In Burggraff, the Supreme Judicial Court of
holding that a mistake of law is not a basis to rescind a contract holding judicial reformation of contract is an appropriate remedy when the contract was the product of a mutual mistake holding that there is no probable cause when an officer makes a stop based on a mistake of law holding that where plaintiff did not seek to rescind a contract and only sought quantum meruit recovery after a jury had determined an enforceable contract existed plaintiff was limited to recovery under the contract holding enlistment contract not voidable due to unilateral mistake