Nevertheless, without valid consideration to support it, the option was never enforceable at all. Greater Greenville relies on Kelly v. Barry, 115 So. 3d 131 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) in asserting that these facts also demonstrate that Emery has no colorable defense to Greater Greenville's deed reformation lawsuit. In Kelly, the deed at issue mistakenly contained language in the legal description that conveyed property encompassing two separate homes from Barry to Kelly, when Barry only intended to convey one home.
¶ 13. "We will not disturb the chancellor's opinion when it is supported by substantial evidence unless the chancellor abused [his] discretion, or was manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous." Kelly v. Barry , 115 So.3d 131, 133–34 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Olive v. McNeal , 47 So.3d 735, 739 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) ). "Additionally, we will reverse the chancellor's decision if [he] applied an erroneous legal standard." Id. "We review questions of law de novo.
¶ 20. Mutual mistake occurs when both parties—here, James and the Martins—intended something other than what was reflected in the instrument in question. Kelly v. Barry, 115 So.3d 131, 134 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.2013). ¶ 21. It is evident from James's actions that he intended to retain all mineral rights on the parcel of land.