SUBURBAN REALTY CO. v. CANTLEY, 495 P.3d 670

Suburban Realty acquired Lot 1, Block 9 (a ~2-acre parcel) in the Country Crossing plat, which was shown and zoned for commercial use (CS) on the plat.
Paragraph D.1 of the Deed of Dedication used all-inclusive language: "No lot shall be used for business or professional purposes..." which on its face barred commercial use of Lot 1.
Suburban sought reformation of the Deed of Dedication to insert the word "residential" before "lot" in D.1 (so the restriction would read "No residential lot..."), and alternatively sought to vacate the plat as to Lot 1.
The trial court reformed the deed to insert "residential," concluding the all-inclusive language was a mutual mistake; vacatur of the plat was rendered moot on appeal.
After prevailing on reformation, Suburban sought attorney fees and costs under 60 O.S. § 856 (a statute allowing prevailing owners in a real estate development to recover fees when enforcing restrictions); the trial court denied fees.
Suburban appealed the fee denial; the Court of Civil Appeals reviewed de novo whether § 856 applied to this reformation action and affirmed the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 60 O.S. § 856 authorizes recovery of attorney fees for Suburban’s action	Suburban: § 856 authorizes fees for actions by owners to enforce restrictions/covenants and thus covers its claim	Homeowners: This was a reformation for mistake, not an enforcement action, so § 856 does not apply	Court: § 856 does not apply because the underlying suit was to reform the deed for mistake (not to enforce a restrictive covenant); American Rule controls, so fees denied

Barnes v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 11 P.3d 162 (American Rule: courts lack authority to award fees absent statute or contract)
Brisco v. State ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Agric. & Mech. Colleges, 394 P.3d 1251 (statutes awarding fees are strictly construed)
Eagle Bluff, L.L.C. v. Taylor, 237 P.3d 173 (courts apply caution when allowing exceptions to the American Rule)
TXO Production Corp. v. Stanton, 847 P.2d 821 (underlying nature of the suit controls applicability of fee statutes)
Dennis v. American-First Title & Trust Co., 405 P.2d 993 (reformation limited to making instrument reflect antecedent agreement; court cannot make a new contract)
Oklahoma Oncology & Hematology, P.C. v. US Oncology, Inc., 160 P.3d 936 (distinguishing reformation from amendment; reformation conforms writing to prior agreement)
Amundsen v. Wright, 240 P.3d 16 (reformation remedies and mutual mistake principles)
Haworth v. Jantzen, 172 P.3d 193 (considering plat and deed together can reveal latent ambiguity)
Ryan v. Ryan, 78 P.3d 961 (latent ambiguity analysis when documents are read together)
Finnell v. Seismic, 67 P.3d 339 (standard of review for legal issues; de novo review)