With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". consequence, if any, of the security interest in the Debtors’ general intangibles asserted by BB & T. BB & T argues that it may pursue the Debtors’ action for reformation of the Fleming/Creger Deed if the Court determines that such cause of action is a general intangible. This Court believes, however, that resolution of this issue is inapposite. In Virginia, the beneficiary under a deed of trust has an independent cause of action for reformation of the grantor’s deed where the grantor is entitled to such relief. See Puckett v. Campbell, 151 Va. 213, 144 S.E. 434 (1928). The Supreme Court of Virginia in Puckett held that “[a] mortgagee stands in the shoes of a purchaser for value and is entitled to reformation.” Id. at 216, 144 S.E. at 435 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (<HOLDING>); see Miners Exchange Bank v. Woodruff (In re

A: recognizing that the right to seek reformation of a deed is limited to the original parties to the deed and their successors in title
B: holding that a beneficiary under a deed of trust was entitled to reformation of the grantors deed
C: holding merger by deed prohibits reformation when one of the parties learns of a mistake before closing and still signs the deed
D: holding that mers was not the beneficiary of a deed of trust under the oregon trust deed act absent conveyance to mers of the beneficial right to repayment and that mers could not hold or transfer legal title to the deed as the lenders nominee
B.