Pamela Watkins bought a home from Sandra Schexnider. Their agreement stated that Watkins would make payments on the mortgage until the note was paid in full, when “the house” would become hers. The agreement also stipulated that she would pay for insurance on “the property.” The home was destroyed in a hurricane, and the insurance proceeds satisfied the mortgage. Watkins claimed that she owned the land, but Schexnider asserted that she had sold only the house. Is parol evidence admissible to resolve this dispute? Explain. [Watkins v. Schexnider, 31 So.3d 609 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2010)]