With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". resort to parol evidence is unnecessary. See Glauser Storage, LLC v. Smedley, 2001 UT App 141, ¶¶ 21-23, 27 P.3d 565 (excluding parol evidence tending to indicate that a transaction was intended as a mortgage where a contemporaneous agreement unambiguously indicated that the parties intended to convey a present possessory interest rather than a mortgage). The Note was signed on the same day as the Deed, and the first page of the Note was attached to the Deed to provide the description of the Property. The Note unambiguously identified the Property as security for the loan from BMBT to the Millers and even indicated the parties’ intent for the Millers “to actively engage in selling the [PJroperty during the time of [the] contract” to satisfy the Note. Cf. Bybee, 189 P.2d at 122 (<HOLDING>). We agree with the trial court that, read

A: holding a quitclaim deed yields only such interest in land as the grantor had at the time of the making of such deed
B: holding that the terms of a contemporaneous contract giving the grantor the right to sell the land unambiguously indicated the parties intent for ownership to remain with the grantor
C: holding that an accused must unambiguously invoke the right to remain silent
D: holding that during police interrogation right to remain silent must be invoked unambiguously
B.