SCOTT v. PETERS
2016 OK 108
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Steven B. Scott (grantor) conveyed 120 acres in 1997 and 40 acres in 2000 to Martin and Tammy Peters (grantees). The 2000 deed contained no mineral reservation; the 1997 deed contained a disputed/minimally-worded reservation clause.
- In 2001 Scott executed and recorded another warranty deed of the same NE/4 tract to Larry Russell (no mineral reservation); Russell conveyed to the Wicherts, who later quitclaimed to the Peters in 2002 (also no reservation).
- The Peters leased the minerals in 2008 and, in 2014, Scott sued to quiet title to the mineral interests and asserted unjust enrichment.
- The Peters moved for summary judgment arguing Scott’s claims are time-barred because recording of deeds put Scott on constructive notice and started the limitations period.
- The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment for the Peters; the Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the appeal to decide whether recording a deed gives constructive notice that starts the statute of limitations for a grantor’s suit to reform or quiet title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the limitations period accrue for a grantor challenging a deed’s mineral reservation? | Scott: limitations tolled until he learned of an insufficiency in the 1997 reservation; equitable tolling applies (Nelson). | Peters: recording of deeds that omit reservations gives constructive notice; limitations begin when deed is filed. | Recording a deed that omits a mineral reservation gives notice and starts the limitations period; Scott’s suit was untimely. |
| Is the 1997 reservation ambiguous/insufficient such that limitations should be tolled? | Scott: the 1997 clause may be inartfully drafted; a layman shouldn’t be charged until dispute arises. | Peters: even if 1997 reservation was imperfect, Scott later executed a 2001 deed with no reservation, which put him on notice. | The 2001 recorded deed without reservation put Scott on notice; any reformation claim is time-barred. |
| Can equitable relief (reformation) be granted despite delay? | Scott: relies on equitable tolling and cases allowing reformation for typographical errors. | Peters: reformation requires clear, convincing evidence of mutual mistake or fraud and cannot evade the statute by delay when constructive notice existed. | Reformation requires clear, convincing proof and may be barred where plaintiff had constructive notice by recorded instruments. |
| Does public-record constructive notice permit indefinite attack on recorded transactions? | Scott: (implicit) equity should allow correction when actual intent differed. | Peters: allowing that would destabilize land titles statewide. | Court: holding for Peters; constructive notice protects settled transactions and limits delayed challenges. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Daugherty, 357 P.2d 425 (Okla. 1960) (equitable tolling/reformation allowed for typographical error in mineral reservation)
- Whitman v. Harrison, 327 P.2d 680 (Okla. 1958) (to create a reservation instrument must clearly express grantor's intent to reserve)
- Board of Comm’rs of Garfield County v. Renshaw, 99 P. 638 (Okla. 1909) (public record of conveyances provides constructive notice; diligence required)
- Cutright v. Richey, 257 P.2d 286 (Okla. 1953) (grantor presumed to have made all intended reservations; cannot derogate from grant)
- Good v. Cohlmia, 330 P.2d 588 (Okla. 1958) (tolling where grantee's conduct reasonably led grantor to believe ownership share)
- Crabb v. Chisum, 80 P.2d 653 (Okla. 1938) (reformation available for mutual mistake)