CALVERT v. SWINFORD, 2016 OK 105

Background

Sisters Lisa Calvert and Teresa Roper sold surface real property in 2000–2001 but allegedly intended to reserve the mineral interests and failed to do so in the recorded deeds.
The grantees, Wayland and Dawn Swinford, filed and obtained a default quiet-title judgment in Noble County (May–Oct 2003).
The Swinfords conveyed portions of the property and later leased and purported to convey mineral interests (transactions between 2003 and 2011).
Plaintiffs discovered the absence of mineral reservations and sued the Swinfords on September 30, 2013 (claims: quiet title to minerals, rescission, breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment).
The Swinfords moved for summary judgment arguing the statute of limitations barred the action because plaintiffs had constructive notice when the deeds were filed of public record.
The trial court granted summary judgment; the Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the appeal and affirmed, holding plaintiffs’ claims accrued when the deeds were recorded and therefore are time-barred.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred	The statute of limitations had not expired because factual issues remain about when plaintiffs discovered the lack of mineral reservation	Recording of the deeds imparted constructive notice to plaintiffs, so limitations began at recording and expired before suit	Held: Claims barred — accrual began when deeds were filed of record, so limitations expired before 2013 suit
Whether constructive notice via recorded deeds is insufficient to start limitations where fraud is alleged	Fraud prevented discovery, so the fraud-based claim does not accrue until discovery	No concealment or secret filing alleged; deeds were publicly recorded so plaintiffs had means to discover the omission earlier	Held: Fraud allegations did not allege concealment; discovery could have occurred when deeds were recorded, so accrual not delayed
Whether prior quiet-title judgment barred relitigation (res judicata/collateral estoppel)	Plaintiffs contested applicability of prior default judgment to mineral interests	Defendants argued prior judgment (filed of record) provided constructive notice and may preclude later claims	Court noted prior decision (Panhandle Royalty) held parties are charged with constructive notice of judgments filed of record; this supports barring later challenges (though court did not decide res judicata here)
Whether summary judgment was premature due to disputed facts	Plaintiffs argued factual disputes on accrual and discovery precluded summary judgment	Defendants argued recorded documents make accrual clear as a matter of law	Held: Summary judgment appropriate — recorded deeds establish constructive notice and start accrual as a matter of law under controlling decisions

Key Cases Cited

Panhandle Royalty Co. v. Farni, 747 P.2d 932 (1987 OK 89) (parties are charged with constructive notice of a judgment when it is rendered and filed of record, which can preclude later claims)