contemporaneously with the parties’ execution of the deed (and after their execution of the sales contract), the parties executed a closing agreement, mutually promising to “fully cooperate, adjust, and correct any errors or omissions and to execute any and all documents needed or necessary to comply with all provisions of the above mentioned [sales] contract.” This agreement was distinct from -the sales agreement and collateral to the conveyance itself. It was not, and could not be, performed by the parties’ execution of the deed, because it obligated the parties to correct any errors or omissions, including those within the deed itself. As such, it was not merged into the deed, and instead stands alone as a separate and independent agreement. See, e.g., Sanchez, 551 S.W.2d at 486 (<HOLDING>); Pleasant Grove Builders, Inc. v. Phillips,
holding that a beneficiary under a deed of trust was entitled to reformation of the grantors deed holding that sellers agreement to furnish title policy was a separate agreement not superseded by the deed and properly not included in the deed recognizing that the right to seek reformation of a deed is limited to the original parties to the deed and their successors in title holding that promise to confirm right of first refusal in deed was distinct and unperformed and thus did not merge into deed and remains in full force and effect as to such other act until full performance thereof holding a quitclaim deed yields only such interest in land as the grantor had at the time of the making of such deed