BURKE, Justice.
[¶ 1] Appellant, Whitney Holding Corporation, challenges a decision of the district court quieting title in a certain mineral estate in favor of Appellees, Clarence and Peggy Terry. Whitney claims it reserved the mineral interest in a Limited Warranty Deed conveying the property from Whitney to the Terrys.
[¶ 2] Whitney presents five issues:
The Terrys rephrase the issues:
[¶ 3] The Terrys owned property located on the lower Tongue River in Sheridan County, Wyoming. They owned the property for many years prior to entering into an agreement to sell the property to Whitney. Whitney wanted the property in order to expand its coal mining operation in the area, and initially contacted the Terrys in the early 1970's about purchasing the property. Whitney maintained its interest and ultimately the Terrys agreed to sell. On December 17, 1979, Whitney and the Terrys entered into a Contract for Deed.
[¶ 4] In the Contract for Deed, the Terrys are identified as "Seller" and Whitney is identified as "Buyer." The purchase price for the Tongue River property was $614,750. In the contract, the Terrys were provided the option of receiving the purchase price in cash, in installments, or by making a "like-kind" exchange.
[¶ 5] The Terrys chose the "like-kind" exchange option and informed Whitney they had selected the "Ranchester property" for the exchange. The property was owned by the Kaufmanns.
Before making the selection, they inquired about the mineral interest in the Ranchester property. According to Mrs. Terry:
[¶ 6] After settling on the Ranchester property, the Terrys notified Whitney. Whitney
[¶ 7] Closing of the transactions occurred on February 25, 1980. At the closing, the Kaufmanns executed a Warranty Deed conveying the Ranchester property to Whitney. Whitney, in turn, executed a Limited Warranty Deed conveying the Ranchester property to the Terrys. The Terrys signed a Warranty Deed conveying the Tongue River property to Whitney. At closing, the Kaufmanns received the balance of the $575,000 purchase price and the Terrys were paid, as "boot," the sum of $39,750, representing the difference in price between the Ranchester property they were receiving and the Tongue River property they were selling to Whitney.
[¶ 8] The Kaufmann Warranty Deed identified the Kaufmanns as "Grantors" and in the body of the deed, specified that the conveyance was "SUBJECT TO the reservation of coal, oil, gas and other minerals set forth in Exhibit `A.'" Exhibit A provided a lengthy legal description and stated the reservation as follows:
The Warranty Deed from the Kaufmanns did not mention the Zimmerman life estate.
[¶ 9] In the Limited Warranty Deed from Whitney to the Terrys, Whitney is identified as "Grantor." The deed also contains an Exhibit A that is identical to the Exhibit A in the Kaufmann/Whitney Deed with two exceptions: the term "Grantors" is changed to "sellers," and there is a specific reference to the Zimmerman life estate. It is this deed that is at the center of the dispute between the parties.
[¶ 10] Three months after the closing, the Terrys executed an oil and gas lease for their mineral interest in the Ranchester property. They also executed a Ratification of Oil and Gas Lease that had previously been signed by Mr. Zimmerman. Through the years, the Terrys executed additional mineral leases for the Ranchester property. Mrs. Terry prepared and recorded Affidavits of Survivorship reflecting the deaths of Mr. Zimmerman and Ms. Glasby and the termination of their life estate in the minerals. There is no indication in the record that Whitney ever claimed any mineral interest in the Ranchester property.
[¶ 11] The first inkling that the Terrys had of questions regarding their mineral interest came from a source other than Whitney. Mrs. Terry testified:
Apparently, efforts to resolve the potential title problems were unsuccessful and the
[¶ 12] Prior to trial, the parties entered into a joint stipulation. In that stipulation, the parties agreed to the admissibility of several documents, including: The Contract between Whitney and the Terrys, the Agreement for Warranty Deed between the Kaufmanns and Whitney, the Kaufmann Warranty Deed to Whitney, and the Limited Warranty Deed from Whitney to the Terrys. Whitney also filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude other extrinsic evidence that the Terrys might attempt to introduce to interpret the Limited Warranty Deed. Whitney contended that the deed was unambiguous. The Terrys resisted the motion. They asserted that the deed was ambiguous and that extrinsic evidence was admissible to interpret the deed. The district court took the motion under advisement and trial proceeded. Whitney renewed its objection to specific extrinsic evidence throughout the trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the district court determined that the Limited Warranty Deed was ambiguous and, after considering the language of the deed and extrinsic evidence, quieted title to the minerals in the Terrys. Whitney filed a timely appeal.
[¶ 13] The district court held a bench trial in this case. Consequently, we apply the following standard of review:
Mullinnix LLC v. HKB Royalty Trust, 2006 WY 14, ¶ 12, 126 P.3d 909, 916 (Wyo.2006).
[¶ 14] Whitney raises five issues in this appeal. All of those issues are premised upon Whitney's contention that the Limited Warranty Deed clearly and unambiguously specifies that Whitney reserved a one-half mineral interest in the Ranchester property. Whether the deed is ambiguous presents a question of law. Treemont, Inc. v. Hawley, 886 P.2d 589, 592 (Wyo.1994). We give no deference to a district court's decision on an issue of law. Id. We determine whether a written contract term is ambiguous "by independently reviewing the disputed term in light of the actual language of the entire contract. A term is ambiguous if, considered in light of the plain language of the entire contract, it is susceptible to more than one reasonable meaning." Smithco Eng'g v. International Fabricators, 775 P.2d 1011, 1019 (Wyo.1989) (Golden, J., concurring) (internal citations omitted).
[¶ 15] The Limited Warranty Deed transferring the Ranchester property from Whitney to the Terrys states:
(Emphasis added.) Exhibit A contained a lengthy property description and also stated:
(Emphasis added.)
[¶ 16] Whitney contends that the term "sellers," in the reservation clause at issue, unambiguously refers to Whitney. According to Whitney, the reference in the Limited Warranty Deed to the Zimmerman life estate is irrelevant to proper interpretation of the deed. Whitney asserts that after it conveyed the Ranchester property to Plaintiffs under the Limited Warranty Deed, "(1) the Terrys owned the surface estate in the Ranchester Property, (2) Whitney owned one-half of the mineral rights in the Ranchester Property, and (3) Kaufmann[s] owned one-half of the mineral rights in the Ranchester Property subject to Zimmerman's life estate." Under Whitney's interpretation, the Terrys did not receive any mineral interest in the Ranchester property.
[¶ 17] According to the Terrys, the term "sellers" in the reservation at issue did not refer to Whitney. It referred to the Kaufmanns. The reference to the Zimmerman life estate was included because it limited the mineral rights to the Ranchester property that the Terrys were receiving in the transaction. According to the Terrys, after the transaction was completed, they owned the surface estate and one-half of the mineral interest in the Ranchester property. Their mineral interest was burdened by the Zimmerman life estate. The Kaufmanns owned the other one-half of the mineral interest in the Ranchester property. Whitney did not retain any mineral interest in the Ranchester property.
[¶ 18] In interpreting a contract we must "give effect to each word if possible, and we strive to avoid construing a contract so as to render one of its provisions meaningless, because each provision is presumed to have a purpose." Shaffer v. WINhealth Partners, 2011 WY 131, ¶ 17, 261 P.3d 708, 713 (Wyo.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). At trial, Whitney attempted to minimize the significance of the reference in the deed to the Zimmerman life estate and limit the focus of the district court to the
[¶ 19] The district court determined that the Limited Warranty Deed was ambiguous based upon its review of the entire document, including the reference to the Kaufmann Warranty Deed, the Zimmerman life estate, and the recitation in the Limited Warranty Deed that the conveyance was subject to "all mineral ... reservations ... in prior instruments of record." The district court explained:
(Footnote omitted.) We are inclined to agree with the district court's analysis. Additionally, we conclude that the specific language of the reservation clause upon which Whitney relies is ambiguous.
[¶ 20] Whitney contends that "[n]one of the three reservations relied on by the Court make the language reserving one-half of the mineral rights to the seller ambiguous." According to Whitney:
A plain reading of the language of the reservation does not support Whitney's interpretation. The first part of the reservation does not mention Whitney, it uses the plural term "sellers." The second part of the reservation refers only to the Zimmerman life estate. It does not say that the Kaufmann mineral interest is burdened by the Zimmerman life estate. It does not even mention the Kaufmanns.
[¶ 21] In addressing the second reservation discussed by the district court, Whitney asserts:
(Emphasis in original.) We agree that the second reservation clearly and unambiguously reflects that the conveyance is subject to the Kaufmann reservation of a one-half mineral interest in the Ranchester Property. As noted by the district court, the reservation clause in the Kaufmann deed makes no mention of the Zimmerman life estate. Whitney's position in this case is that the Kaufmann mineral interest is burdened by the Zimmerman life estate. Based upon the language of the Kaufmann deed, it is difficult to ascertain how Whitney arrives at that conclusion. Additionally, Whitney's concession that the reservation clause could be viewed as a repetition of the Kaufmann reservation dovetails with the interpretation of the Limited Warranty Deed presented by the Terrys.
[¶ 22] The Terrys contend that the references in the Limited Warranty Deed to the Kaufmann reservation and the Zimmerman life estate are significant and necessary terms of the deed to reflect the mineral interest that the Kaufmanns were conveying and that the Terrys were receiving. The Kaufmanns were reserving a one-half interest
[¶ 23] Whitney's position is summed up in this excerpt from its brief:
Whitney employed this technique repeatedly at trial and continues that approach in this appeal. It consistently treats the term "sellers" contained in the reservation clause and "Whitney" as synonyms. It regularly adds the parenthetical (Whitney) after "sellers" even though "Whitney" is not identified in the reservation clause. Whitney routinely changes the plural term "sellers" that is contained in the reservation clause to the singular "seller" and provides no explanation for the change. Whitney has provided no authority governing contract interpretation that would allow adding words (Whitney) to the reservation clause or permit changing a plural word (sellers) to the singular form (seller). Most significantly, Whitney never explains how it reached the conclusion that the term "sellers" clearly and unambiguously refers to Whitney. When we review the entire document, as we are required to do, we cannot conclude that the reservation clause is unambiguous or that the term "sellers" clearly and unambiguously refers to Whitney.
[¶ 24] The term "sellers" is not defined in the Limited Warranty Deed. Whitney is consistently identified in the Limited Warranty Deed as "Grantor," not as "sellers." The deed states that the transfer to the Terrys is "SUBJECT, HOWEVER, to the ... reservations set forth in the [Kaufmann Warranty Deed] to the
[¶ 25] After determining that the deed was ambiguous, the district court interpreted the deed utilizing the language of the deed and extrinsic evidence. The district court concluded that the parties intended, and the deed reflected, that Whitney did not reserve a mineral interest in the Ranchester property. We agree with the district court.
[¶ 26] In the basic transaction between the Terrys and Whitney, the Terrys were the sellers and Whitney was the buyer. The Terrys were selling their property to Whitney. The terms of the agreement were set forth in a Contract for Deed, dated December 17, 1979. In that document, Whitney is identified as "buyer." The Terrys are identified as "seller." The references are used consistently throughout the document. Whitney is never identified as a "seller" or "sellers."
[¶ 27] In the Kaufmann contract with Whitney, the Kaufmanns are identified as "sellers" and Whitney is identified as "buyer." The references are used consistently throughout that document. Whitney is never identified as a "seller" or "sellers."
[¶ 28] The Contract for Deed between the Terrys and Whitney makes it absolutely clear that Whitney was only to act as a conduit to facilitate the transfer of the exchange property:
There is no language in the Contract for Deed reflecting any intent that Whitney would retain any interest in the exchanged property.
[¶ 29] Additionally, the course of conduct of the parties after completion of the sale is uniformly consistent with the Terrys' interpretation of the deed. Course of conduct evidence may properly be considered in interpreting an ambiguous contract. B & R Builders v. Beilgard, 915 P.2d 1195, 1198 (Wyo.1996). The Terrys acted at all times as the owners of the mineral estate that was burdened by the Zimmerman life estate. The Terrys executed and filed affidavits of survivorship reflecting termination of the Zimmerman life estate after Mr. Zimmerman died in 1988. They entered into several oil and gas lease agreements. They at all times acted as owners of the mineral estate. Whitney, on the other hand, did nothing. It took no action of any kind, until this lawsuit, to reflect that it claimed any interest in the mineral estate. The course of conduct evidence was properly relied upon by the district court to interpret the deed and supports the district court's decision.
[¶ 30] In addition to its general objection to the admissibility of extrinsic evidence, Whitney contends that evidence regarding the value of the properties was irrelevant. We review a district court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Cramer v. Powder River Coal, LLC, 2009 WY 45, ¶ 22, 204 P.3d 974, 981 (Wyo.2009). The district court succinctly explained the relevance in its decision letter:
We agree with the district court. The evidence was relevant.
[¶ 31] Finally, Whitney claims that the district court erred in failing to hold that the Terrys' claim was barred by the ten year statute of limitations applicable to claims to reform a contract. The applicability of a statute of limitations is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Ray v. St. Vincent Healthcare, Inc., 2006 WY 98, ¶ 8, 139 P.3d 464, 466 (Wyo.2006); McCreary v. Weast, 971 P.2d 974, 978 (Wyo.1999).
[¶ 32] Whitney's assertion that this is an action for reformation is tied to its contention that the reservation at issue was unambiguous and that the Terrys sought reformation based upon "mistake." Neither contention has merit. The deed is ambiguous, and the Terrys never sought to reform the deed because of mistake.
[¶ 33] The only evidence of "mistake" in the trial occurred during cross-examination of the Terrys by counsel for Whitney. In an apparent attempt to obtain a factual foundation for its statute of limitations claim, Whitney's counsel sought testimony from the Terrys that the term "sellers" was mistakenly used in the deed. Mrs. Terry testified that the term was "confusing."
Counsel for the Terrys followed-up on redirect:
[¶ 34] Mr. Terry also denied that use of the term "sellers" was a mistake. This short excerpt from Mr. Terry's cross-examination sums up the Terrys' position that the term "sellers" referred to the Kaufmanns and that it would be a mistake for the term "sellers" to be read as "Whitney."
[¶ 35] Both parties in this action were merely asking the district court to interpret the deed. Disagreement as to the meaning of a term in an agreement does not convert a quiet title action into an action for reformation. The Terrys' quiet title action is not barred by the statute of limitations.
[¶ 36] In conclusion, we would reiterate that the fundamental goal of contract interpretation is to determine the intent of the parties. Mullinnix, ¶ 22, 126 P.3d at 919. The district court properly determined that the Limited Warranty Deed was ambiguous and did not err in admitting extrinsic evidence to interpret the deed. The language of the Limited Warranty Deed and the properly admitted extrinsic evidence support the district court's determination that Whitney did not reserve any mineral interest in the Ranchester property.
[¶ 37] Affirmed.
HILL, Justice, dissenting, in which KITE, Chief Justice, joins.
[¶ 38] I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. The Whitney/Terry deed clearly and unambiguously reserves a one-half mineral interest to the seller, Whitney. That reservation may, very well, have been a mistake. However, that mistake should not be corrected by torturing our rules of contract interpretation to essentially remove the reservation from the deed and allow the one-half mineral interest to be conveyed to the buyers, the Terrys.
[¶ 39] Whitney conveyed the Ranchester property to the Terrys in a Limited Warranty Deed dated February 25, 1980, which stated, in relevant part:
Exhibit A included a legal description of the Ranchester property, the reservation specifically at issue here, and a reference to the Zimmerman life estate:
[¶ 40] The Whitney/Terry deed, therefore, included a reservation to the sellers of a one-half mineral interest and gave notice of reservations and exceptions contained in two other deeds—the Kaufmann/Whitney deed and the Zimmerman/Kaufmann deed. The Kaufmann/Whitney deed reserved to the Kaufmanns one-half mineral interest. The Zimmerman/Kaufmann deed conveyed the Ranchester property to the Kaufmanns and stated the following with regard to the reserved life estate:
[¶ 41] A deed is a contract and we employ our typical contract interpretation principles to interpret it. Ecosystem Resources, LC v.
Davidson Land Co. LLC v. Davidson, 2011 WY 29, ¶ 14, 247 P.3d 67, 71-72 (Wyo.2011) (citations omitted). We consider parol evidence to construe a deed only if it is, first, found to be ambiguous on its face. Belden v. Thorkildsen, 2007 WY 68, ¶ 16, 156 P.3d 320, 324 (Wyo.2007). In other words, parol evidence may not be used to create an ambiguity. Schulz v. Miller, 837 P.2d 71, 75 (Wyo. 1992).
[¶ 42] The district court stated that "[a]ttempting to give meaning to the multiple reservations which appear to overlap and be repetitive prevents a clear and unambiguous determination as to what minerals were reserved." The majority agreed with this assessment. "[I]f a grantor intends to keep some property interest when conveying the property, he `
[¶ 43] The district court and, apparently, the majority ascribe significance to the deed's reference to the Zimmerman life estate and indicate that somehow renders the deed ambiguous. The Terrys maintained that the deed would not have referred to the life estate unless the parties intended the life estate to encumber the one-half interest that supposedly transferred to them. It is axiomatic that neither Whitney nor the Terrys had the authority to affect, in any way, the encumbrances or prior reservations already extant in the chain of title. Thus, Whitney and the Terrys could not "assign" the life estate to either half of the minerals in the Whitney/Terry deed. The only legal purpose for referring to the life estate was to give notice that the life estate was part of the chain of title. Furthermore, delving into the issue of which part of the mineral estate the life estate burdened ignores our precedent which clearly states that quiet title actions involve and bind only the parties before the court. Ultra Resources, Inc. v. Hartman, 2010 WY 36, ¶¶ 52-53, 226 P.3d 889, 911-12 (Wyo.2010). The life tenants are not involved in this matter and, from the record, it appears they are deceased. As such, the life estate does not affect the only true reservation in the Whitney/Terry deed—the reservation of one-half mineral interest to the sellers.
[¶ 44] The majority rules that the deed is ambiguous because the reservation in Exhibit A uses the word "sellers" instead of the word "grantor" like in the body of the deed. In making that ruling, the majority apparently accepted the Terrys' argument that the term "sellers" refers to the Kaufmanns. While it is not artful to use two different terms to identify a party in a deed, there is no question that Whitney was the seller in the deed. In fact, the granting clause states: "[Whitney] ... does hereby grant, bargain,
[¶ 45] The majority also finds ambiguity in the use of the plural "sellers" since Whitney should have been referred to in the singular and indicates that this reinforces the argument that the reference to sellers is to the Kaufmanns. In considering this argument, it is important to remember that the actual grantor in the deed was Peter Kiewit Sons, Inc. Obviously, Peter Kiewit Sons, Inc. is a corporation and should have been referred to in the singular; however, the name of the corporation "Peter Kiewit Sons," stated in the plural, lends itself to the plural reference. Reading the inadvertent use of the plural to refer to Peter Kiewit Sons makes much more sense than reading that reference to mean, as the Terrys advocate, the Kaufmanns who were not even parties to the deed.
[¶ 46] If we ignore, as the majority does, that the reservation in Exhibit A uses the active voice, i.e., the sellers "reserve," and interpret the reservation to the sellers as simply giving notice of the Kaufmanns' prior reservation of their one-half mineral interest, we encounter another deed interpretation problem. Such an interpretation results in there being two provisions in the deed which give notice of the Kaufmanns' reservation— the first one in the granting clause where specific reference is made to the reservation in the Kaufmann/Whitney deed and the second in Exhibit A where the sellers reserve the mineral interest. This interpretation violates a basic principle of contract interpretation, which requires that we give separate effect to each provision so as to avoid rendering a provision meaningless. Shaffer v. WINhealth Partners, 2011 WY 131, ¶ 17, 261 P.3d 708, 713 (Wyo.2011).
[¶ 47] I, therefore, disagree with the district court's and majority's conclusion that the deed is ambiguous. There is nothing indefinite or confusing in the deed language that obscures the parties' intent with regard to the meaning of the reservation—Whitney, the only "seller" involved in the Whitney/Terry deed, reserved one-half mineral interest to itself. The majority improperly stretches the language and relies on implausible assumptions to conclude the deed is ambiguous.
[¶ 48] Here, the
[¶ 49] Another problem is that much of the evidence and testimony offered by the Terrys at the trial and relied upon by the district court in reaching its decision pertained to the Terrys' subjective intent with regard to the transaction. Peggy Terry, Clarence Terry, and their attorney testified that it was always the parties' intent that Whitney simply act as a conduit in the like-kind exchange and transfer whatever interest it received from the Kaufmanns to the Terrys. The Terrys stated that they were to obtain the one-half mineral interest in the property. The district court found Ms. Terry's testimony particularly credible. Regardless of her credibility, we have repeatedly stated that "the parties' statements of what they intended the contract to mean are not admissible" to interpret deed language. Hickman v. Groves, 2003 WY 76, ¶ 13, 71 P.3d 256, 260 (Wyo.2003); Jacobs Ranch Coal Co. v. Thunder Basin Coal Co., 2008 WY 101, ¶ 17, 191 P.3d 125, 131 (Wyo.2008). Thus, the parties' statements as to their subjective intent were not relevant or admissible under any circumstances to interpret the deed.
[¶ 50] The majority incorrectly applies our rules of deed interpretation to reach a desired result, that being the implementation of the parties' overall intent without regard for the deed language. I understand that
[¶ 51] "Reformation is an equitable remedy available in cases where a mistake in the drafting of the written contract makes the writing convey the intent or meaning of neither party to the contract." Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. W.N. McMurry Const. Co., 230 P.3d 312, 320 (Wyo.2010); Hutchins v. Payless Auto Sales, Inc., 2002 WY 8, ¶ 19, 38 P.3d 1057, 1063 (Wyo.2002). "The remedy is appropriate when a written instrument does not accurately memorialize the parties' agreement." Sanders v. Sanders, 2010 WY 77, ¶ 12, 234 P.3d 343, 348 (Wyo.2010). A party seeking to reform an instrument must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence: "(1) a meeting of the minds—a mutual understanding between the parties—prior to the time a writing is entered into, (2) a written contract, or agreement, or deed (3) which does not conform to the understanding, by reason of mutual mistake." Id. This is exactly what the Terrys are claiming in this case-the parties had agreed that the Terrys would receive the mineral interest and the deed actually executed by Whitney did not conform to that understanding as a result of a mutual mistake. If we condone use of parol evidence to "interpret" a contract to correct an obvious mistake in the instrument, there will no longer be any need for the remedy of reformation.
[¶ 52] The legal concept of reformation has been analyzed in cases remarkably similar to the present one. In Town of Glenrock v. Abadie, 71 Wyo. 414, 259 P.2d 766 (1953), Engelking agreed to sell certain property to Skinner, while reserving one-half of the mineral interest. When he executed the deed; however, he failed to reserve the mineral interest. Skinner then entered into an agreement to sell the property to the Town of Glenrock. The agreement stated that one-half of the mineral rights had been reserved by Engelking and that the Town would be receiving only one-half of the mineral rights. Skinner then executed a warranty deed to the Town without reserving any mineral rights. After he had already transferred his interest in the property to the Town, Skinner gave Engelking a deed purporting to convey to him one-half of the minerals. Later, the Town conveyed back to Skinner one-half of the mineral interest. Id. at 766-68. In a subsequent quiet title action, the Town sought a declaration of its ownership.
[¶ 53] We determined that a mistake had been made by failing to reserve Engelking's mineral interest, and that "[s]uch an action is an action to correct or reform a deed." Town of Glenrock, 259 P.2d at 770. A reformation claim was, however, barred by the applicable statute of limitations because the limitations period began to run upon the recording of the deed and over thirty years had passed before the action to recover the mistakenly conveyed interest was commenced. Id. at 770-72. The only substantive difference between the case at bar and Town of Glenrock is that here a reservation was allegedly mistakenly included rather than omitted. See also, Sanders, ¶¶ 11, 20, 234 P.3d at 346-49 (discussing plaintiffs' efforts to reform a deed to remove a joint tenant whom they claimed was only intended to have survivor rights and no right to present possession of the property and holding that reformation was not proper because naming the defendant as a joint tenant in the deed was not a mutual mistake, even though the parties did not actually intend to give the defendant all of the rights of a joint tenant); Samuel Mares Post No. 8, American Legion, Dept. of Wyoming v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Converse, 697 P.2d 1040, 1042 (Wyo.1985) (addressing the Legion's contention that it had conveyed the property "to be used solely as an airport and if the property ever ceased to be used as such, the land would revert back to the Legion," and concluding that, even if that was the parties' intent at the time of conveyance, the deed was unambiguous, did not contain a condition subsequent, and could not be reformed
[¶ 54] In this case, the Terrys essentially sought to remove the mistaken reservation of a one-half mineral interest to Whitney. That is a classic reformation action. The general ten-year statute of limitations applies to actions to reform a deed, and the limitations period began to run when the deed was recorded. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-109 (LexisNexis 2011).
