relies.’ ” Guarino, 980 F.2d at 405 (quoting InterRoyal Corp. v. Sponseller, 889 F.2d 108, 111 (6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1091, 110 S.Ct. 1839, 108 L.Ed.2d 967 (1990)). Summary judgment is not appropriate if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Conclusory allegations, however, are not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. McDonald v. Union Camp Corp., 898 F.2d 1155, 1162 (6th Cir.1990). DISCUSSION A. Reformation of Contracts Under Florida Law Reformation is an equitable remedy. The doctrine wa So.2d 144, 150 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996); SunBank/North Fla. Nat'l Ass’n v. Tuttle, 683 So.2d 1189, 1190 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996) (<HOLDING>); Alexander v. Kirkham, 365 So.2d 1038, 1040
holding debtor could cure after the debtor had previously made payments to the bank holding that the bank was not entitled to reform the note which stated that debtor would make monthly payments less than what the parties intended even though error was mutual mistake of parties where debtor made all of the previous payments was retired and could not afford to pay any additional obligations to the bank and meet his current living expenses holding that debtor not bank paid the propertytax redemption amount even though debtor paid this amount using proceeds of loan from the bank holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default holding postpetition payments due to the debtor under a prepetition noncompete agreement were not property of the estate because the debtor had not done all acts necessary to accrue his right to the future payments