CALVERT v. SWINFORD, 382 P.3d 1028

Sisters (Calvert and Roper), acting as attorneys-in-fact for their father, agreed to sell Oklahoma surface property while intending to reserve the mineral interests. Closing documents prepared by a Kansas attorney and handled by Powers Abstract Co. were signed by the sisters in July 2002, but the recorded deeds contained no reservation of minerals.
Deeds were filed in the Noble County Clerk on July 25, 2002. The sisters did not receive copies of the filed deeds and later alleged the abstract company and attorney were negligent.
In 2014 the sisters sued for reformation and professional negligence to recover mineral rights. Powers Abstract moved for summary judgment asserting the claims were time‑barred; trial court granted summary judgment, concluding the statute of limitations began when the deeds were filed.
On appeal the central question retained by the Oklahoma Supreme Court was whether a grantor’s claim accrues when the deed is filed (constructive notice) or when the grantor discovers the mistake (discovery rule).
The Court held as a matter of law that the statute of limitations for negligence (and reformation) began to run when the deeds were filed of record; the discovery rule did not apply under these facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the statute of limitations accrue for a grantor’s negligence/reformation claim based on a mistaken deed?	Accrual is tolled by the discovery rule — limitations run from when sisters learned of the defect (circa 2013).	Accrual occurs when the deed was filed of record; filing gives constructive notice and starts limitations.	Accrues when deed is filed; suit filed in 2014 was untimely.
Does the discovery rule apply to toll limitations where a grantor claims ignorance of deed contents after signing and recording?	Discovery rule applies because sisters did not know and could not reasonably know of the mistake until later.	Discovery rule does not apply — recorded public instrument was available and the grantors had duty to read/inquire.	Discovery rule inapplicable here; no concealed or inherently undiscoverable negligence.
Is a recorded deed constructive notice to the grantor (as well as subsequent purchasers) such that limitations should run?	Statute references only subsequent purchasers/mortgagees/etc.; grantors are not listed, so constructive-notice rule shouldn’t automatically charge grantors.	Public-record recording statutes and common-law notice principles charge parties with knowledge obtainable by reasonable diligence, including grantors.	Recording serves as constructive notice; grantors are charged with knowledge obtainable by reasonable diligence; limitations run from recording.

Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. v. Vick, 840 P.2d 619 (Okla. 1992) (applies discovery rule to certain professional‑negligence claims where negligence is not reasonably discoverable)
Pangaea Exploration Corp. v. Ryland, 239 P.3d 160 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010) (public records can provide grantors constructive notice of a mistake in a deed and start the limitations period)
Board of Comm’rs of Garfield County v. Renshaw, 99 P.638 (Okla. 1909) (party is charged with notice of matters of public record and of facts discoverable by reasonable diligence)
Panhandle Royalty Co. v. Farni, 747 P.2d 932 (Okla. 1987) (constructive notice of a recorded judgment can preclude a later quiet‑title action)