CALVERT v. SWINFORD
2016 OK 105
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Sisters Lisa Calvert and Teresa Roper sold real property in Noble County in 2000–2001 but claim they intended to reserve the mineral interests and that the deeds failed to do so.
- Deeds were filed of record with the County Clerk in 2000–2001; the grantees (Wayland and Dawn Swinford) obtained a default quiet-title judgment in their favor in 2003 and thereafter conveyed and leased portions of the property and minerals.
- Grantors discovered the alleged omission about twelve years later and filed suit on September 30, 2013, asserting quiet title to minerals, rescission, breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment.
- The Swinfords moved for summary judgment arguing the claims were time-barred because the limitations periods accrued when the deeds were filed (constructive notice).
- The trial court granted summary judgment; the Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the appeal to resolve whether constructive notice from filing the deeds precludes the action.
- The Court affirmed: the grants’ causes of action accrued when the deeds were filed of record, so the claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether constructive notice from filing a deed starts the limitations period for claims based on an alleged failure to reserve mineral interests | Calvert: Limitations had not begun because factual disputes exist as to discovery and accrual | Swinford: Filing of the deed gave constructive notice and started accrual; claims are time-barred | Court: Accrual began when deed was filed of record; statute of limitations bars the claims |
| Whether fraud or other alleged concealment tolled accrual or created fact issues | Calvert: Fraud claims could delay accrual until discovery; factual issues exist about concealment | Swinford: No concealment alleged; deeds were public record so fraud (if any) could have been discovered then | Court: No allegation of secret concealment; fraud could have been discovered from the recorded deeds, so limitations not tolled |
Key Cases Cited
- Panhandle Royalty Co. v. Farni, 747 P.2d 932 (Okla. 1987) (recording a judgment or instrument imparts constructive notice and starts the limitations period for later challenges)
