VOIGT, Justice.

[¶ 1] American National Bank (ANB), acting as Trustee of the Louise J. Sara Irrevocable Trust, appeals the district court's denial of ANB's motion to enforce a settlement agreement between Louise J. Sara and Joseph D. Sara (Joseph). ANB is also appealing the district court's denial of attorneys' fees and costs associated with filing the motion to enforce. Finding that the district court erred in denying ANB's motion to enforce, we will reverse that portion of the district court's order with further instructions as detailed below, but we will uphold the district court's denial of an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] 1. Did the district court err in finding that the current action was a quiet title action and therefore the district court did not retain jurisdiction to decide the matter?

2. Did the district court err in finding that the Release, Waiver and Satisfaction of All Claims did not discharge the mortgage and note at issue in this case?

3. Did the district court abuse its discretion by ordering the parties to pay their own attorneys' fees and costs?

FACTS

[¶ 3] The history of this case and the development of the current conflict dates back to 2000. A series of lawsuits, countersuits, and motions were filed in late 2000 and beyond, between members of the Sara family, against each other, personally, and in their capacity as personal representatives and trustees of various family trusts. The actions involved numerous issues arising out of squabbles over ownership and control of various real and personal property owned by the Sara family and trusts controlled by members of the Sara family. The disputes ultimately led to a Release, Waiver and Satisfaction of all Claims (Release), which Release was signed in October 2001, by all of the parties, both personally and in their capacity as personal representatives or trustees. As a result of the Release, the parties filed a Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice of all the actions previously filed by the parties. The district court then entered an Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, signed by all of the parties, dismissing with prejudice all of the parties' lawsuits. In addition to dismissing all of the lawsuits, and at the request of the parties, the district court also ordered that it would retain jurisdiction over the action in order to enforce the Release in the future.

[¶ 4] In May 2009, ANB, acting as Trustee of the Louise J. Sara Irrevocable Trust, filed a Motion to Enforce Release, Waiver and Satisfaction of All Claims.1 ANB's motion was in response to a demand by Joseph for payment on a note secured by a mortgage on property belonging to the Louise J. Sara Irrevocable Trust. The property, located at 422 West 3rd Avenue in Cheyenne, was transferred to the Louise J. Sara Irrevocable Trust pursuant to the Release. Prior to the property being transferred, it was part of the Restated Dominic Sara Living Trust Agreement, controlled by Joseph as the Trustee. ANB's motion to enforce argued that the note and mortgage were discharged pursuant to the Release and Joseph's attempts to collect on the note violated the Release. The motion requested that the district court enforce the Release and find that the note and mortgage had been discharged by the Release. ANB also sought attorneys' fees and expenses associated with ANB's motion. The district court denied ANB's motion to enforce, holding that ANB's motion to enforce was actually a quiet title action and that the district court did not retain jurisdiction over such an action. The district court further ruled that to the extent it retained jurisdiction over any portion of ANB's motion to enforce, the Release did not discharge the note and mortgage. The district court also denied ANB's request for attorneys' fees and expenses. This appeal by ANB followed.

DISCUSSION

Did the district court err in finding that the current action was a quiet title action and therefore the district court did not retain jurisdiction to decide the matter?

[¶ 5] This question of whether a district court lacks jurisdiction to decide a matter is reviewed de novo. See William F. West Ranch, LLC v. Tyrrell, 2009 WY 62, ¶ 9, 206 P.3d 722, 726 (Wyo.2009); Douglass v. Wyo. Dep't of Transp., 2008 WY 77, ¶ 9, 187 P.3d 850, 853 (Wyo.2008). The law in Wyoming relating to retained jurisdiction is clear: a court may retain jurisdiction over a stipulation or settlement agreement for the purpose of enforcing the terms of the stipulation or settlement agreement, if the order of dismissal so provides and the parties agree. Rawlinson v. Wallerich, 2006 WY 52, ¶ 12, 132 P.3d 204, 208-09 (Wyo.2006) (citing 8 [James Wm. Moore et al.,] Moore's Federal Practice [§ ] 41.34[[6][a], at 41-122, [h], at 41-125 (3d ed. (2010) ])).

[¶ 6] In response to ANB's Motion to Enforce Release, Waiver and Satisfaction of All Claims, the district court determined that ANB's motion was a quiet title action and, based on the Release, the district court did not retain jurisdiction over such an action. We disagree with the district court and hold that ANB's motion was not a quiet title action but, rather, was a motion to enforce the Release, which is exactly the kind of action over which the district court retained jurisdiction. The Release provides that "[t]he parties agree that the Court will retain jurisdiction in this matter for the purpose of enforcing the terms and conditions of this Release." Additionally, the subsequent Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice entered by the parties provides that "[t]he parties also request that this Court retain jurisdiction in this matter for the purpose of enforcing the RELEASE, WAIVER AND SATISFACTION OF ALL CLAIMS agreed to by the parties."

[¶ 7] In part, ANB's motion to enforce provides as follows:

[¶ 8] It is clear that the parties requested, and the district court ordered, that the district court retain jurisdiction in order to enforce the Release. ANB's motion was in response to Joseph's attempts to collect on the note and mortgage, which note and mortgage existed prior to the Release. Furthermore, the note and mortgage related to property and parties subject to the Release. Consequently, Joseph's attempts to collect on the note and mortgage relating to this particular property, against a party to the Release, directly implicated the terms and conditions of the Release. ANB's motion sought to enforce the Release, which was the purpose of the district court's retained jurisdiction. The question was whether the note and mortgage were released in the settlement. This was not a quiet title action.

Did the district court err in finding that the Release, Waiver and Satisfaction of All Claims did not discharge the mortgage and note at issue?

[¶ 9] Although the district court determined that ANB's motion was really a quiet title action and therefore the district court did not retain jurisdiction, the district court went on to hold that to the extent the district court did retain jurisdiction over the matter that the Release did not discharge the mortgage and note. We find that conclusion to be in error. The determination of this issue requires this Court to interpret the Release entered into by the parties.

[¶ 10] "A settlement agreement is a contract and, therefore, subject to the same legal principles that apply to any contract." Dobson v. Portrait Homes, Inc., 2005 WY 95, ¶ 9, 117 P.3d 1200, 1204 (Wyo.2005); see also Dorr v. Wyo. Bd. of Certified Pub. Accountants, 2006 WY 144, ¶ 16, 146 P.3d 943, 953 (Wyo.2006). In that regard, we have said the following relating to the interpretation of contracts:

Terris v. Kimmel, 2010 WY 110, ¶ 7, 236 P.3d 1022, 1025 (Wyo.2010) (quoting Horse Creek Conservation Dist. v. State ex rel. Wyo. Attorney Gen., 2009 WY 143, ¶ 25, 221 P.3d 306, 315 (Wyo.2009)).

[¶ 11] Regarding the property in question, the Release provides as follows:

The district court and Joseph rely on the final provision of this section of the Release, which states that Louise J. Sara would assume all liabilities and expenses associated with the property, in order to argue that the Release did not discharge the mortgage and note associated with the property. However, that provision is just one of many in the Release. When interpreting a contract, "the contract as a whole should be considered, with each part being read in light of all other parts." Dorr, 2006 WY 144, ¶ 16, 146 P.3d at 953. To that end, when the Release is considered as a whole, the purpose and intent of the Release become clear. The intent of the Release was to satisfy and release all existing claims that all the parties had against each other, which included the mortgage and note. Two such provisions in the Release support this interpretation. The first of those provisions provides as follows:

(Emphasis added.)

[¶ 12] The second provision in the Release that provides insight into the intent of the Release provides as follows:

These provisions underscore the obvious intent behind the parties entering into the Release. Clearly the parties intended to settle once and for all any claims that they had against one another. The Release is clear and the language is unambiguous. Any claims that Joseph had based on the note and mortgage as they related to the property that Louise J. Sara took pursuant to the Release were extinguished when Joseph signed the Release, and he was obligated to execute a release of the mortgage.

[¶ 13] Joseph argues that such an interpretation is erroneous because it would render the clause in the Release requiring Louise J. Sara to assume all existing liabilities and expenses associated with the property meaningless. It is true that when we construe a contract, we endeavor to avoid interpreting it in a way that would render any provision meaningless. Scherer v. Laramie Reg'l Airport Bd., 2010 WY 105, ¶ 11, 236 P.3d 996, 1003 (Wyo.2010). The Release is unambiguous and, contrary to Joseph's position, we have interpreted the Release consistent with the parties' intent and in a manner that gives effect to each provision. Our conclusion that the intent of the Release was to discharge any and all claims the parties had against each other does not render meaningless the provision regarding Louise J. Sara taking the property subject to existing liabilities and expenses. Instead, that provision remains entirely effective against third parties who were not parties to the Release. The mortgage and note existed prior to the execution of the Release and affected property and parties that were part of and subject to the Release. To conclude that the Release did not discharge the mortgage and note would undermine the purpose and intent of the Release, that the parties release all claims and liabilities against each other. Consequently, we find that the district court erred in concluding that the Release did not discharge the mortgage and note. We will remand to the district court for entry of an order enforcing the Release and discharging the note and mortgage in question.

Did the district court abuse its discretion by ordering the parties to pay their own attorneys' fees and costs?

[¶ 14] ANB argues that the district court abused its discretion when it ordered each party to pay its own attorneys' fees and costs associated with filing and defending the motion to enforce. Regarding denials of an award of attorneys' fees and costs, we have said the following:

Stafford v. JHL, Inc., 2008 WY 128, ¶¶ 14-15, 194 P.3d 315, 318 (Wyo.2008). Furthermore,

Snodgrass v. Rissler & McMurry Co., 903 P.2d 1015, 1017 (Wyo.1995) (internal citations omitted).

[¶ 15] The Release provides the following regarding attorneys' fees and costs:

This provision does not pertain to the current issue of attorneys' fees and costs associated with ANB's later motion to enforce; rather, it pertains to fees and costs that occurred prior to the Release. There is no contract between the parties that would alter the American rule as it applies to the attorneys' fees and costs relating to ANB's motion to enforce.

[¶ 16] ANB acknowledges that Wyoming follows the American rule; nevertheless, ANB argues that Joseph should be required to pay ANB's attorneys' fees and costs because Joseph acted in bad faith in concealing the existence of the mortgage and note until long after the Release was executed, and then attempted to collect on the note and mortgage. ANB relies on Snodgrass, 903 P.2d at 1017, for the proposition that in the absence of a contractual provision or statutory authority a party may be awarded attorneys' fees and costs if he or she can show that "fraud, malice, oppression or willful wrong has occurred." In Snodgrass, we did note an exception to the American rule, stating that "[i]n a replevin action, a party may be awarded attorney fees when they can show that `fraud, malice, oppression or willful wrong' has occurred." 903 P.2d at 1017 (quoting Olds v. Hosford, 354 P.2d 947, 950 (Wyo.1960)). As indicated by the text of that quote, the exception has been limited to replevin actions. Snodgrass did not expand the holding in Hosford beyond replevin actions, but was determined instead on our conclusion that bad faith had not been proven. Snodgrass, 903 P.2d at 1019; see also McNeill Family Trust v. Centura Bank, 2003 WY 2, ¶ 32, 60 P.3d 1277, 1289 (Wyo. 2003) (noting the fraud exception in replevin actions). We are not convinced that the facts of this case are such that we should broaden the exception to the American rule mentioned in Snodgrass.

CONCLUSION

[¶ 17] The district court erred in holding that ANB's motion to enforce was a quiet title action and that the district court lacked jurisdiction to determine such an action. ANB's motion clearly sought to enforce the terms of the Release. Furthermore, the district court erred in determining that the note and mortgage at issue in this case were not discharged by the Release. The clear intent of the parties entering into the Release was to discharge and release any and all claims that the parties had against each other, either individually or in their capacity as personal representatives or trustees. The note and mortgage were claims held by Joseph prior to entering into the Release and were subsequently discharged upon signing the Release. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the district court's order and remand this matter to the district court for entry of an order discharging the note and mortgage at issue. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the American rule and requiring the parties to pay their own attorneys' fees and costs.

[¶ 18] Reversed and remanded.