Seamons v. Wiser

2020 UT App 33
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
JAMES S EAMONS AND K ADI S EAMONS,
Appellees,
v.
LARRY G. WISER AND P ATRICIA B. WISER ,
Appellants.
Opinion
No. 20180902-CA
Filed March 5, 2020
First District Court, Logan Department
The Honorable Thomas Willmore
No. 150100401
Jonathan E. Jenkins, Attorney for Appellants
Seth J. Tait, Attorney for Appellees
JUDGE M ICHELE M. C HRISTIANSEN F ORSTER authored this Opinion,
in which J UDGES K ATE A PPLEBY and DIANA H AGEN concurred.
CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, Judge:
¶1 	Larry 	and 	Patricia 	Wiser 	appeal 	the 	district 	court’s
reformation of a warranty deed in favor of James and Kadi
Seamons. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 	Lawrence and Billie Lou Wiser owned and operated a
dairy farm in Lewiston, Utah, for decades. In 1980, Lawrence
and Billie Lou subdivided a 219.5-foot-wide parcel of the farm
(the Wiser Parcel) and conveyed it to their son, Larry, and his
wife, Patricia, for their home. Immediately east of Larry and
Patricia’s home was an empty seventy-five-foot-wide lot (the
Strip), and just east of that was a separate parcel on which
Lawrence and Billie Lou’s home stood (the Seamons Parcel). See

Seamons v. Wiser
20180902-CA 	2 	2020 UT App 33
infra 	Appendix. 	The 	Strip 	was 	included 	in 	the 	1980 	legal
description 	of 	the 	Wiser 	Parcel. 	However, 	the 	1980 	legal
description 	was 	inconsistent 	with 	the 	property 	Larry 	and
Patricia 	were 	actually 	using 	for 	their 	home 	and 	yard. 	The
western side of the Wiser Parcel closely abutted the side of the
home and excluded a driveway and other improvements to the
west of the home. The Strip, on the other hand, was being used
as part of the farm. Thus, in 2000, a series of quitclaim deeds (the
2000 Deeds) were recorded to shift Larry and Patricia’s property
approximately thirty-five feet to the west to encompass the
improved property west of their home. This left a gap of land
thirty-five feet wide (the Gap) between the Wiser Parcel and the
Seamons parcel that was recorded in the name of Lawrence and
Billie Lou’s trust.
¶3 	By 2006, Lawrence and Billie Lou’s other son, Daniel, was
running the farm, but he had become tired of dairy farming and
wanted to get out of the business. So in 2006, Lawrence and
Billie Lou sold their farm and home to James and Kadi Seamons.
The warranty deed conveying the property to the Seamonses
(the 	Warranty 	Deed) 	excluded 	the 	Wiser 	Parcel 	from 	the
Seamonses’ property and described that parcel as including the
entire Strip. At that time, the Strip, which bordered the rest of
the farm land on the north side, was being used in the farm
operations. The Strip was set apart from each home by a fence
that ran around the north and west sides of Lawrence and Billie
Lou’s yard, along the south side of the Strip, and then around
the east, north, and west sides of Larry and Patricia’s yard.
However, at the time of the sale, Lawrence and Daniel informed
James Seamons that the eastern boundary of the Wiser Parcel
was somewhere in the middle of the Strip, and there was a
survey stake in the middle of the Strip. After purchasing the
farm, the Seamonses used the entire Strip up until 2010, when
Larry moved the fence on the east side of his property to the
middle of the Strip in line with the survey stake, which he
understood to be the true eastern boundary of the Wiser Parcel.
From that time forward, the Wisers occupied the western part of

Seamons v. Wiser
20180902-CA 	3 	2020 UT App 33
the Strip and the Seamonses occupied the Gap property on the
eastern part of the Strip.
¶4 	In 2014, the Seamonses commissioned a survey of the
properties, at which point they learned that the Gap was still
titled in the name of Lawrence and Billie Lou’s trust. The
Seamonses asked Lawrence to sign a quitclaim deed transferring
the Gap to them, based on their understanding at the time of the
purchase in 2006. But instead, Lawrence transferred the Gap to
Larry 	and 	Patricia. 	Thereafter, 	the 	Seamonses 	filed 	suit,
requesting that the court reform the Warranty Deed to include
the Gap1 in the description of their property based on mutual
mistake.2
¶5 	The Wisers moved the court to dismiss the Seamonses’
suit 	based 	on 	laches 	and 	the 	expiration 	of 	the 	statute 	of
limitations. The court declined to rule on the motion at the outset
but permitted the Wisers to address the factual basis of their
argument in the course of trial.
¶6 	The district court held a bench trial in June 2018, and most
of 	the 	evidence 	was 	received 	by 	proffer. 	The 	Seamonses
proffered the expert testimony of a surveyor (Mr. Hansen) to
explain the discrepancy between the description of the Wiser
Parcel used in the 2000 Deeds and the description used in the
Warranty Deed. He discovered that the Cache County Tax Roll
records contained “an erroneous legal description” of the Wiser
Parcel “that did not match the legal description in the chain of
title for” the Wiser Parcel and that the Warranty Deed used that
erroneous description rather than the description in the 2000
1. The Seamonses’ initial complaint requested that the Warranty
Deed be reformed to include the entire Strip, but they later
amended the complaint to claim only the Gap.
2. The Seamonses also raised additional causes of action that
were dismissed by the court and are not relevant to this appeal.

Seamons v. Wiser
20180902-CA 	4 	2020 UT App 33
Deeds. 	The 	Wisers, 	on 	the 	other 	hand, 	proffered 	expert
testimony of another surveyor (Mr. Christensen) who would
testify that the 2000 Deeds were erroneous in failing to include
the Gap in the legal description of the Wiser Parcel.
¶7 	Following trial, the district court entered findings of fact
and conclusions of law in which it found “that based upon the
proffered testimony of all parties, the Wisers intended to sell and
the [Seamonses] intended to purchase all the farm and older
house excluding Larry and Patricia Wiser’s parcel.” It further
found “that the parties understood that the portions of the Strip
east of the stake were being purchased by the” Seamonses and
that “the intent of the parties was to convey . . . the eastern half
of the Strip[] to the [Seamonses] and to exclude only [the Wiser
Parcel] which was to remain owned by Larry and Patricia.” The
court found that the legal description of the Wiser Parcel used in
the Warranty Deed “does not exist anywhere in the chain of title
for” the Wiser Parcel and therefore arose from an erroneous
legal description in the Cache County Tax Roll records. In doing
so, the court “place[d] great weight on the testimony of Mr.
Hansen” and observed that the Wisers “did not put forth any
expert evidence disputing” that testimony. In ruling on the
question of mutual mistake, the court “place[d] great weight on
the facts that the [Seamonses] have occupied and used the
Gap . . . since the time they purchased the farm in 2006 and up to
the present day” and that “the entire Strip was being used and
occupied” by Daniel as part of the farm property at the time the
farm was sold to the Seamonses. The court therefore concluded
that there was “clear and convincing evidence that the parties
were mutually mistaken as to the legal description for [the Wiser
Parcel] contained in the 2006 Warranty Deed which caused the
Gap and that it was the [parties’] intent to convey the Gap to the
[Seamonses].”
¶8 	In light of the mutual mistake, the court ordered that the
Warranty Deed be reformed to describe the Wiser Parcel in
accordance with the 2000 Deeds’ description so as to convey the
Gap 	to 	the 	Seamonses 	as 	originally 	intended. 	The 	court’s

Seamons v. Wiser
20180902-CA 	5 	2020 UT App 33
findings of fact and conclusions of law did not include any
findings related to the Wisers’ motion to dismiss on laches and
statute-of-limitations grounds, and the court did not issue a
ruling on that motion. The Wisers now appeal.
ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶9 	The Wisers assert that the district court erred in failing to
rule on their motion to dismiss. Whether the district court made
“findings of fact on all material issues . . . presents a question of
law, which we review for correctness.” Vandermeide v. Young,
2013 UT App 31, ¶ 7, 296 P.3d 787.
¶10 	The Wisers next assert that the court erred in reforming
the Warranty Deed based on mutual mistake. In reviewing a
district court’s determination that a deed should be reformed for
mutual mistake, we review the court’s findings of fact for clear
error and its conclusions of law for correctness. See Peterson v.
Pierce, 2019 UT App 48, ¶ 10, 440 P.3d 833.
¶11 	Finally, 	the 	Wisers 	assert 	that 	the 	court 	erred 	in
discounting 	their 	proffered 	expert 	testimony. 	We 	review 	a
court’s findings of fact for clear error, Rand v. KOA Campgrounds,
2014 UT App 246, ¶ 5, 338 P.3d 222, and will reverse only if an
erroneous finding was reasonably likely to have affected the
outcome of the case, Armed Forces Ins. Exch. v. Harrison, 2003 UT
14, ¶ 22, 70 P.3d 35.
ANALYSIS
I. The Wisers Waived Their Argument That the Court Failed to
Rule on Their Motion to Dismiss.
¶12 	The Wisers first argue that the district court erred in not
ruling 	or 	making 	findings 	on 	the 	laches 	and 	statute-of-
limitations arguments raised in their motion to dismiss. While it
is apparent that the court did not rule on these issues, the Wisers

Seamons v. Wiser
20180902-CA 	6 	2020 UT App 33
waived their challenge to the court’s inaction by failing to bring
the court’s omission to its attention.
¶13 	To preserve an issue for appeal, the issue must be raised
“specifically” and “in such a way as to afford [the district court
judge] an opportunity to correct the alleged error.” 438 Main St.
v. Easy Heat, Inc., 2004 UT 72, ¶ 56, 99 P.3d 801. Thus, when a
party claims that the district court failed to rule on a material
issue, 	the 	party 	must 	“object 	to 	the 	court’s 	findings 	and
conclusions on this basis” or “file a post-judgment motion asking
the court to make additional findings.” Vandermeide v. Young,
2013 UT App 31, ¶ 9, 296 P.3d 787. By failing to either object or
file a post-judgment motion bringing this issue to the district
court’s attention, the Wisers therefore waived their argument
regarding the motion to dismiss.
¶14 	The Wisers argue that they preserved this issue by filing
their motion to dismiss, addressing the matter at trial, and
asserting arguments relating to the motion in their trial brief. But
the issue raised on appeal is not that the court erred in denying
the Wisers’ motion to dismiss but that it erred in failing to issue
a ruling on that motion. The Wisers’ actions preserved their
laches and statute-of-limitations arguments but did not preserve
their claim that the court failed to rule on those arguments. By
failing to object or file a post-judgment motion pointing out the
lack 	of 	findings 	and 	conclusions 	relating 	to 	the 	motion 	to
dismiss, the Wisers never alerted the district court to the error
they now allege on appeal. Because the district court was not
afforded “an opportunity to correct the alleged error”—i.e., its
failure to rule on the motion to dismiss—the issue was not
preserved. See 438 Main St., 2004 UT 72, ¶ 56. Accordingly, we
decline to address this issue further.
II. The Court Did Not Err in Reforming the Deed Based on
Mutual Mistake.
¶15 	The Wisers next assert that the district court erred in
reforming the Warranty Deed. They raise two arguments in

Seamons v. Wiser
20180902-CA 	7 	2020 UT App 33
support of their position. First, they assert that the court could
not consider extrinsic evidence of intent without first finding
that the Warranty Deed was ambiguous. They maintain that the
Warranty 	Deed 	was 	not 	ambiguous 	because 	the 	explicit
language of the parcel description included the entire Strip in its
legal definition of the excluded Wiser Parcel. Second, they assert
that a number of the court’s factual findings were insufficient to
support its determination that the Seamonses established mutual
mistake by clear and convincing evidence.3 We address each
argument in turn.
A. 	Parol Evidence May Be Used to Show Mistake of Fact
Without a Finding of Ambiguity.
¶16 	The 	description 	of 	the 	Wiser 	Parcel 	included 	in 	the
Warranty Deed explicitly described the entire Strip. However,
the district court found that this description was the result of the
parties’ mutual mistake because the Strip was regularly used for
farm operations both before and after the farm was sold to the
Seamonses and because the parties intended to convey to the
Seamonses all the land that was not part of the Wiser Parcel. The
Wisers assert that the district court erred in considering this
extrinsic evidence of mutual mistake because the language in the
Warranty Deed was unambiguous.
¶17 	In 	contract 	interpretation, 	the 	parol 	evidence 	rule
excludes extrinsic evidence offered “for the purpose of varying
or adding to the terms of an integrated contract.” Union Bank v.
Swenson, 707 P.2d 663, 665 (Utah 1985) (quotation simplified).
The same principle applies to interpreting the language of a
3. The Wisers characterize this argument as a legal challenge to
the 	court’s 	mutual 	mistake 	ruling. 	However, 	their 	entire
argument 	on 	this 	point 	consists 	of 	pointing 	to 	alleged
inconsistencies between the evidence and the court’s findings.
We therefore construe this issue as a challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence and review it for clear error.

Seamons v. Wiser
20180902-CA 	8 	2020 UT App 33
deed. Neeley v. Kelsch, 600 P.2d 979, 981 (Utah 1979) (“The
general rule is that parol evidence may not contradict, vary, or
add to deeds.”). Thus, in interpreting the language of a contract
or deed, we resort to extrinsic evidence only if the contract
language is ambiguous. See Plateau Mining Co. v. Utah Div. of
State Lands & Forestry, 802 P.2d 720, 725 (Utah 1990). But in this
case, the dispute did not involve differences as to how the deed
should be interpreted. Rather, the Seamonses’ reformation action
was premised on their argument that the parties made a mutual
mistake by including the Gap in the Warranty Deed’s legal
description of the Wiser Parcel.
¶18 	“[M]utual mistake [is] an exception” to the parol evidence
rule, and extrinsic evidence may be examined “even if the
property description is definite and certain.” Neeley, 600 P.2d at
981; see also, e.g., Jensen v. Manila Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, 565 P.2d 63, 64 (Utah 1977) (holding that
“parol evidence is admissible in an action for reformation[] to
show the writing did not conform to the intent of the parties”
and 	rejecting 	the 	contention 	that 	“parol 	evidence 	must 	be
excluded 	if 	the 	description 	of 	the 	property 	is definite 	and
certain”); 	Janke 	v. 	Beckstead, 	332 	P.2d 	933, 	934 	(Utah 	1958)
(holding that an ambiguity is not necessary to admission of parol
evidence where reformation “is sought on the ground of mutual
mistake or fraud” (citing 45 Am. Jur. Reformation of Instruments
§ 113)); E & H Land Ltd. v. Farmington City, 2014 UT App 237,
¶ 25, 336 P.3d 1077 (holding that extrinsic evidence is admissible
to show mutual mistake); Vandermeide v. Young, 2013 UT App 31,
¶ 12, 296 P.3d 787 (explaining that when mutual mistake is at
issue, “extrinsic evidence is admissible to assist in determining
the intent of the parties” (quotation simplified)); Wolf Mountain
Resorts, LC v. ASC Utah, Inc., 2011 UT App 425, ¶ 11, 268 P.3d 872
(“In an exception to the general rule disallowing parol evidence
to 	interpret 	contracts, 	parol 	evidence 	is 	admissible 	to
demonstrate that a mutual mistake resulted in a document
which does not accurately reflect the intent of the parties.”
(quotation simplified)). But see Percival v. Cooper, 525 P.2d 41, 42
(Utah 1974) (“Where the description of premises conveyed in a

Seamons v. Wiser
20180902-CA 	9 	2020 UT App 33
deed is definite, certain, and unambiguous, extrinsic evidence
cannot be introduced to show that it was the intention of the
grantor to convey a different tract or that he did not intend to
convey all of the land described.”).4 Thus, the district court did
not 	err 	in 	examining 	extrinsic 	evidence 	presented 	by 	the
Seamonses in support of their mutual-mistake argument.
B. 	The Court’s Findings Were Not Clearly Erroneous.
¶19 	The Wisers next assert that the district court erred in
concluding that the Warranty Deed should be reformed due to
the 	parties’ 	mutual 	mistake. 	“Reformation 	of 	a 	deed 	is
appropriate 	where 	the 	terms of 	the 	written 	instrument 	are
mistaken 	in 	that 	they 	do 	not 	show 	the 	true 	intent 	of 	the
agreement between the parties.” Vandermeide v. Young, 2013 UT
App 31, ¶ 12, 296 P.3d 787 (quotation simplified). When a party
seeks to reform a deed based on mutual mistake, that party “has
the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that
there was a mutual mistake of fact.” Id. (quotation simplified).
The Wisers assert that the Seamonses did not meet their burden
and contest two of the district court’s findings of fact: that the
Strip was being used for farming at the time of the sale and that
the parties intended for the Gap to be included in the 2006 sale.
4. Percival v. Cooper, 525 P.2d 41 (Utah 1974), is the only case the
Wisers cite in support of their contention that an ambiguity in
the deed must be found before parol evidence of intent may be
used to show mutual mistake. But the Percival holding was
directly contradicted by the supreme court’s holding in Jensen v.
Manila Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 565
P.2d 63 (Utah 1977), three years later, see id. at 64 (explicitly
rejecting the contention that “parol evidence must be excluded if
the description of the property is definite and certain”); was
inconsistent with well-settled law even at the time it was issued,
see Percival, 525 P.2d at 43 & n.1 (Crockett, J., dissenting); and has
never been relied on or even cited in any other Utah case.

Seamons v. Wiser
20180902-CA 	10 	2020 UT App 33
¶20 	We will not set aside a court’s factual findings unless they
are clearly erroneous. See id. ¶ 14. “To make such a showing, a
party challenging a finding of fact must demonstrate that the
evidence is legally insufficient to support the finding when
viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the court
below.” Austin v. Bingham, 2014 UT App 15, ¶ 12, 319 P.3d 738
(quotation simplified). In other words, the party “must do more
than 	merely 	reargue 	the 	evidence 	supporting 	his 	or 	her
position.” Id. (quotation simplified).
¶21 	In challenging the district court’s findings, the Wisers
have not met their burden of persuasion on appeal. Rather than
confronting the evidence supporting the district court’s findings,
the Wisers have presented “carefully selected facts and excerpts
from the record in support” of their position and point to
evidence that could potentially support different findings. See id.
(quotation simplified).
¶22 	For 	example, 	in 	challenging 	the 	court’s 	finding 	that
Daniel Wiser was using the Strip for farm operations at the time
of the sale, they point to deposition testimony in which Daniel
stated that he did not remember exactly what the Strip was
being used for at the time of the sale. But Daniel also testified,
“When I had sold it to [James Seamons], . . . I had young heifers
running out there . . . . I don’t remember exactly what I was
doing to that strip right then or—well, I know I was running
heifers through this end, so I kind of used it as a pasture
somewhat.” And while some of his testimony was equivocal
regarding the exact use of the Strip at that time, he clearly
testified that the Strip was used for farming while he was
managing the farm, and he never suggested that the Strip was
being put to any other use at the time the Seamonses purchased
the farm. Thus, this evidence supports the district court’s finding
that the Strip was being used in farm operations at the time of
the sale.
¶23 	Similarly, in challenging the court’s finding of intent, the
Wisers ignore the proffered evidence that supports the district

Seamons v. Wiser
20180902-CA 	11 	2020 UT App 33
court’s finding and reargue the facts by pointing to evidence
that 	supports 	their 	position. 	For 	example, 	they 	challenge
the 	court’s 	finding 	that 	“James 	Seamons 	understood 	from
his conversations with Daniel and Lawrence Wiser that the
eastern 	boundary 	of 	[the 	Wiser 	Parcel] 	was 	approximately
located in the middle of the strip” by citing Lawrence Wiser’s
denial 	that 	this 	conversation 	occurred. 	But 	the 	Seamonses
proffered testimony from James Seamons that this conversation
did occur. It was the district court’s prerogative to weigh this
conflicting evidence. See Lunt v. Lance, 2008 UT App 192, ¶ 19,
186 P.3d 978. The fact that there was evidence contradicting the
court’s finding does not make the finding clearly erroneous
when sufficient evidence has been submitted that supports the
court’s finding. See Hale v. Big H Constr., Inc., 2012 UT App 283,
¶ 60, 288 P.3d 1046 (“When . . . there is conflicting evidence, we
defer 	to 	the 	trial 	court 	as 	the 	factfinder. 	The 	existence 	of
conflicting evidence does not give rise to clear error as long as
evidence 	supports 	the 	trial 	court’s 	decision.” 	(quotation
simplified)).
¶24 	The Wisers also assert that a finding that the parties
intended 	for 	the 	Gap 	to 	be 	included 	in 	the 	purchase 	was
inconsistent with the Seamonses’ own representations because
when they first filed suit, the Seamonses represented that they
believed they were entitled to the entire Strip and then later
limited their claim to only the Gap property. But the Seamonses
do not assert that the parties intended to include any particular
portion of the Strip in the sale of the farm. Rather, they contend
that they intended to include all the property that was not part of
the Wiser Parcel in the sale and that they understood that
property to include some portion of the Strip. The fact that the
Seamonses first asserted they owned the entire Strip and later
asserted they owned only the Gap is not inconsistent with
mutual mistake as to what was actually included in the Wiser
Parcel. The Seamonses may not have realized that the western
part of the Strip was legally part of the Wiser Parcel, but that is
not inconsistent with a belief that they had purchased everything
that was not part of the Wiser Parcel.

Seamons v. Wiser
20180902-CA 	12 	2020 UT App 33
¶25 	In short, the Wisers have failed to establish that any of the
court’s factual findings regarding mutual mistake were clearly
erroneous. We therefore defer to the court’s findings of fact.
III. The Court Did Not Exceed Its Discretion in Discounting the
Wisers’ Proffered Expert Testimony.
¶26 	Finally, the Wisers take issue with the district court’s
finding 	that 	they 	“did 	not 	put 	forth 	any 	expert 	evidence
disputing Mr. Hansen’s testimony and conclusions.”5 The Wisers
assert 	that 	this 	finding 	is 	clearly 	erroneous 	because 	they
proffered expert testimony from Mr. Christensen indicating that
“there is no error in the 2006 warranty deed.”
¶27 	Read in context, however, this finding 	is not clearly
erroneous, because it appears to be limited to Mr. Hansen’s
testimony and conclusions regarding the “creation of the Gap.”
The full finding reads,
The Court heard testimony concerning the creation of
the Gap from Clint Hansen, a licensed surveyor.
The Court places great weight on the testimony of
Mr. Hansen and the Court notes that [the Wisers]
did not put forth any expert evidence disputing
Mr. 	Hansen’s 	testimony 	and 	conclusions. 	The
Court finds that the Gap was caused because of an
error in the legal description for [the Wiser Parcel]
that 	was 	introduced 	into 	the 	legal 	description
noted on the Cache County Tax Roll for [the Wiser
5. 	The 	Wisers 	variously 	characterize 	their 	argument 	as 	a
challenge to the accuracy of the factual finding and a challenge
to the adequacy of the court’s findings. To the extent that the
Wisers 	challenge 	the 	adequacy 	of 	the 	findings, 	we 	do 	not
address their argument because they did not raise this argument
before the district court and it is therefore not preserved. See 438
Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 2004 UT 72, ¶¶ 50–51, 99 P.3d 801.

Seamons v. Wiser
20180902-CA 	13 	2020 UT App 33
Parcel] in the year 2000. Mr. Hansen discovered
that in 2000 the Defendants executed and recorded
a series of deeds which shifted the location of [the
Wiser Parcel] approximately 35 feet to the west (the
“2000 Adjustment”). The Cache County Tax Roll
records adopted an erroneous legal description out
of the 2000 Adjustment that did not match the legal
description in the chain of title for [the Wiser
Parcel].
(Emphasis added.) This finding explicitly states that it concerns
Mr. Hansen’s testimony about how the Gap was created, and the
entire paragraph focuses on this specific aspect of Mr. Hansen’s
testimony. Taken out of this context, the court’s finding about
the Wisers’ lack of expert testimony could be read as erroneous.
But read in this context, we agree with the Seamonses that the
court appears to be commenting on the lack of “expert evidence
disputing Mr. Hansen’s testimony and conclusions” “concerning
the creation of the Gap.” (Emphasis added.) Although the Wisers
did assert that Mr. Christensen would testify that it was the 2000
Deeds, 	rather 	than 	the 	Warranty 	Deed, 	that 	contained 	an
erroneous description of the Wiser Parcel, they did not assert
that Mr. Christensen had a different explanation for how the
Gap came to be.
¶28 	But even if we were to accept the Wisers’ assertion that
the court’s finding was erroneous, the error does not justify
reversal because it “was sufficiently inconsequential that there is
no reasonable likelihood that it affected the outcome of the case.”
Armed Forces Ins. Exch. v. Harrison, 2003 UT 14, ¶ 22, 70 P.3d 35.
Based on all the proffered evidence, the court found that the
description of the Wiser Parcel in the Warranty Deed was the
result of mutual mistake. This finding implicitly rejects Mr.
Christensen’s proffered opinion that there was no error in the
Warranty Deed. Although the court relied on Mr. Hansen’s
testimony 	to 	explain 	the 	Gap, 	it 	relied 	primarily 	on 	other
evidence of the parties’ intent to determine that the Warranty

Seamons v. Wiser
20180902-CA 	14 	2020 UT App 33
Deed’s inclusion of the Gap in its description of the Wiser Parcel
was erroneous. Specifically, the court pointed to the Wisers’
“desire to sell and [the Seamonses’] desire to buy all the farm
property; 	[the 	Seamonses’] 	farming 	and 	use 	[of] 	the 	Gap
property after the sale; the location of the stake or marker along
the road; and, [Larry] placing a fence running north from the
stake.” The Wisers have not explained why they believe there
was a reasonable likelihood that the court would have made a
different finding regarding mutual mistake in the absence of the
allegedly 	erroneous 	finding 	regarding 	their 	lack 	of 	expert
testimony. And in light of the other evidence the court found
persuasive, we are not convinced that any error in this particular
finding affected the court’s ruling. Thus, even if we agreed that
the finding was erroneous, remanding the case to correct that
finding would be a “meaningless exercise.” Uhrhahn Constr.
& Design, Inc. v. Hopkins, 2008 UT App 41, ¶ 22, 179 P.3d 808.
CONCLUSION
¶29 	Because the Wisers did not preserve their argument that
the court failed to rule on their laches and statute-of-limitations
arguments, we do not consider that argument on appeal. We
also reject the Wisers’ argument that the court was required to
find an ambiguity in the Warranty Deed to reform it based on
mutual mistake. Because the evidence was sufficient to support
the court’s finding of mutual mistake, we defer to that finding.
Further, because any error in the court’s finding regarding the
Wisers’ lack of expert testimony was inconsequential, reversal is
not justified on that basis. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s
decision to reform the Warranty Deed.

Seamons v. Wiser
20180902-CA 	15 	2020 UT App 33
APPENDIX
Note: These diagrams are not drawn to scale and are provided
only for illustrative purposes.