This approach requires a lesser burden of proof because it does not involve changing the terms of the instrument as written. Instead, it involves interpretation of the parties' understanding in the face of a silent instrument. Of these two alternative approaches, however, only reformation of the deed could justify holding that one of the purported grantees received no interest. Therefore, we presume that the superior court intended to reform the deed to reach this result. Because D.A. sought reformation of the deed, the trial court did not err in admitting parol evidence concerning the parties' intentions in executing the deed.
Parol evidence is admissible to establish a claim for reformation.
Parol evidence is also admissible to rebut any presumptions concerning the fractional interests of tenants in common. See Annotation, Shares of tenants in common, at 517. The superior court's findings imply that the conveyance to D.M. was a gift, but the court did not explicitly resolve this issue. If the court finds that the parties intended to own equal interests, but in fact contributed unequally to the acquisition costs without intending to make a gift of any excess contributions, then the court should credit the party making excess contributions with those contributions in the division of the property. This rule is best understood not as an exception to the general rules of cotenancy, but as a particular application of those rules.