items into the easement area near the drainpipe. However, the record is devoid of evidence that this caused a drainpipe blockage or any interference with the Clarks’ right to utilize the easement to maintain the drainpipe. Therefore, the omission of a restraining order against the Vondersaars is not error. VIII. Reformation of Quit Claim Deed Finally, the Clarks contend that the Vondersaars have not established, by clear and convincing evidence, their entitlement to the extreme equitable remedy of reformation of the quitclaim deed. We agree that the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding, by a preponderance of the evidence [Conclusion of Law 2], that the Vondersaars are entitled to reformation. See Estate of Reasor v. Putnam County, 635 N.E.2d 153, 160 (Ind.1994) (<HOLDING>). Here, the parties agreed, during earlier
holding in part that party seeking reformation of deed must show the original intent or agreement of parties by clear and convincing evidence holding clear and convincing standard to prove fraud or fraudulent intent and preponderance of the evidence to prove other elements under  727 holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence holding that reformation is an extreme equitable remedy available only when a party shows either mutual mistake or fraud by clear and convincing evidence and that findings as to reformation based upon a preponderance of the evidence standard are clearly erroneous holding that findings of fact are conclusive if supported by clear and convincing competent evidence even where the evidence might support contrary findings