of serivener's error, the mistake of a scrivener in drafting a document may be reformed based upon parol evidence, provided the evidence is clear, precise, convincing and of most satisfactory character that the mistake has occurred and that the mistake does not reflect the intent of the parties.") (footnote omitted). Most significantly, however, because the Subsequent Purchasers contend that the Commissioner's Deed conveyed more property than to which James was entitled under the parties' land sale contracts, it is their prerogative to seek reformation of the deed through their quiet title action, which requires them to show by clear and convincing evidence that the property conveyed is not what Harvey intended. See Estate of Reasor v. Putnam County, 635 N.E.2d 153, 160 (Ind.1994) (<HOLDING>); see also I.L.E. Deeds § 247 ("A mistake in
holding merger by deed prohibits reformation when one of the parties learns of a mistake before closing and still signs the deed holding that a beneficiary under a deed of trust was entitled to reformation of the grantors 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 in part that party seeking reformation of deed must show the original intent or agreement of parties by clear 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