At trial the Pattersons offered parol evidence to show that both parties intended the deed here to operate as a mortgage. The trial court agreed and found that an equitable mortgage existed between the parties. A. Parol Evidence. Initially, we address whether the trial court erred by considering parol evidence in making its determination that the parties here entered into an equitable mortgage rather than an absolute conveyance of land. Generally, the parol evidence rule prohibits courts from considering parol or extrinsic evidence for the purpose of varying or adding terms to a written contract where an integration clause states that the written document embodies the complete agreement between the parties.
Grace directs our attention to an integration clause contained in the parties' option agreement.
Grace's argument that the parol evidence rule applies to the instant case, however, is not persuasive. Numerous cases in this jurisdiction have established that parol evidence may be used to show that a conveyance of land absolute on its face is in fact a mortgage. Thus, we find no error here. B.Court's Special Findings and Conclusions. On appeal, both parties challenge the findings and conclusions entered by the trial court.