Kindle v. Taylor
20-7063
| 10th Cir. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- Dispute over ~52 acres in Adair County, Oklahoma; Richard M. Taylor conveyed two deeds: to his daughter Janet Taylor (executed Dec. 7, 2001; recorded Jul. 17, 2003) and to friend Billie Howard (executed Apr. 24, 2002; recorded Apr. 29, 2002).
- Howard’s estate sued to quiet title; Taylor removed to federal court on diversity grounds; Oklahoma substantive law applies.
- Oklahoma law makes an unrecorded deed ineffective against an innocent purchaser for value (good faith, valuable consideration, without notice).
- The parties agreed Howard acted in good faith and without notice; the dispute focused on whether Howard paid "valuable consideration" and on the applicable burden/presumptions.
- The district court found a statutory presumption that a recorded deed is supported by consideration, that Taylor failed to rebut it by clear and convincing evidence, and granted summary judgment to Howard’s estate.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, relying on Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 114 as construed in Woodruff v. Woodruff to presume valuable consideration for a deed absent clear, positive rebuttal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Taylor) | Defendant's Argument (Howard's Estate) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a recorded deed is presumptively supported by valuable consideration | No presumption; estate must prove valuable consideration affirmatively | Recorded deed gives rebuttable presumption of consideration; burden on challenger to rebut by clear and convincing evidence | Presumption applies under Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 114 as interpreted in Woodruff; Taylor failed to rebut |
| Whether the district court erred in relying on § 53 rather than § 114 | § 53 presumption should not apply to rights under competing deeds | § 53 (and § 114) support presumption; but § 114 alone suffices | Court may affirm on alternative ground; relied on § 114/Woodruff and affirmed |
| Whether estate needed to plead innocent-purchaser status as an affirmative defense | Estate should have pleaded it under Rule 8(c) | Estate’s filings made its position clear; no unfair surprise; defendant bore pleading burden for affirmative defenses | No reversal; pleading argument failed and did not affect outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodruff v. Woodruff, 418 P.2d 642 (Okla. 1966) (a validly executed deed is presumptively supported by valuable consideration; presumption rebuttable only by clear and positive evidence)
- Whitehead v. Garrett, 185 P.2d 686 (Okla. 1947) (defining "third persons" as innocent purchasers for value under recording statute)
- Exch. Bank of Perry v. Nichols, 164 P.2d 867 (Okla. 1945) (elements of an innocent purchaser for value: good faith, valuable consideration, lack of notice)
- Coll v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 642 F.3d 876 (10th Cir. 2011) (federal courts in diversity apply state law as the state’s highest court would)