*1 acting of America STATES UNITED ADMINISTRATION, Through HOME the FARMERS /cross-appell Appellee
ant,
Floyd HOBBS, Appellant,
Melvin REED and Ron P. L.
Reed, Cross-appellees. 84170,
Nos.
Supreme of Oklahoma. Court
July *2 Hickman, Tulsa, appellant,
Steven R. Floyd Hobbs. Enid, Crowley,
Tim J. for appellee/cross- appellant, Farmers Home Administration. Pawhuska, Kelly, cross/ap- Robert P. pellees, L. Reed Melvin and Ron P. Reed. KAUGER, Vice Chief Justice: presented are Two issues on certiorari:1 1) granted pursuant whether a deed to a foreclosure sale conducted after an automatic 2) valid; stay issues is whether property pur- recorded title real obtained 93(1)2 subject suant to 12 April perfected purchaser In Hobbs leased of the 320 acres fer is so that a bona fide parcel cross-appellees, property, against applicable Reed and Melvin L. such whom law (Reeds). purchased Ron P. permits perfected, Reed The Reeds later such transfer to be could acquire the land from Hobbs. The and the superior trial court an interest to the that is Appeals good good purchaser. Court of found that were Reeds interest of such faith purchasers bonafide purchaser knowledge this tract and faith without com- of the sale, stay, pres- even in violation of the was of the case and mencement for less than portion property equivalent valid. This of the at issue is not ent fair value has a lien on (1996) pro- property pres- Title any certiorari. 11 U.S.C. transferred to the extent of part: pertinent given, copy vides in ent value unless a or notice petition so filed before was was such transfer (c) "... The trustee under sub- avoid perfected....” so (a) of section this section a of real transfer good property purchaser to a faith without 2. Title 12 O.S.1991 knowledge of the the case commencement of present equivalent and for fair unless a value filed, copy petition notice of where or "Actions for property may a transfer such real be record- for the determination of transfer, therein, perfect brought ed to such trans- before such interest can within Bank). (Land invalidity if After default the owner of record Bank of Wichita attack for loans, suit filed. possession of on the foreclosure actual control and has been in 1985, judgment granted to FHA years. July, property in excess of five Land Bank. Hobbs filed pronouncement our governed first issue *3 461, granted Sep- stay was on Campbell, 862 P.2d and an Bailey in (Okla.1991) following day and judicial 1985. The proceedings under tember again clerk stay in on November the court in of an automatic taken violation Therefore, special of sale cover- of no a issued are effect.3 exeeution/orders stay property. At the sale in the satisfaction deed in violation of an automatic issued However, judgment, purchased land. presented, facts of the FHA the void. under the is of the dis- property may not be The sale confirmed order the title the attacked to 17,1985. FHA first trict court on validity. the its December basis of January in A its sheriffs deed of 1986. filed in corrected deed was filed March. FACTS in Floyd that FHA (appellanVHobbs/debtor) undisputed is Hobbs 3,907 a 320 approximately possession acres of land in actual control and of all but owned County subject mortgages land from time it Osage to held acre tract of the Hobbs the (FHA/ap- quiet the Home Administration took title until the title action was Farmers years.5 period of The 320 pellee/cross-appellant) and the Federal Land filed —a over of, periods prescribed, pending a after effect or as hereinafter the cause ued in conclusion accrued, of, hearing have and at of action shall no other a and result final determination (d) time thereafter: under subsection of this section....” (1) property An action for of (5) years ... sold on execution within five after response opposition to 5.FHA’s in Hobbs’ motion recording of the of the deed made in date summary judgment for and its cross motion for pursuance proceeding the sale or ... partial summary judgment support and brief in (6) 1, 2, paragraphs and 3 Numbered shall be provides pertinent part: in fully regardless operative of whether the deed FACTS "... STATEMENTOF UNDISPUTED . judgment pro- precedent or or the action or subject possession ... Plaintiff took upon ceeding judgment which or such deed property day January, on or the 3rd before part, based is void or voidable in whole or in possession which has been and contin- reason, jurisdictional any or ...” otherwise notorious, adverse, open, ues to be exclusive also, Development 3. See South WesternOklahoma against defendant and continuous as Inc., Works, Engine Auth. v. Sullivan Hobbs, (5) period years. for a of more than five (Okla.1996). (5) period of more than five That elapsed prior filing plaintiff to this action....” (1996) provides perti- 4. Title 11 U.S.C. 362 in Terrell, Osage affidavit of William G. part: nent FHA, Supervisor County to the attached “(a) (b) provided Except as in subsection pertinent part: and it motion section, petition this filed under section acquired "... Title the 'Hobbs Ranch’ was title, application 303 of this or an filed or through FHA a Sheriff's in Janu- Deed 5(a)(3) under the Securities section Investor officers, aiyofl986. through the FHA That 1970, operates stay, Act of Protection tenants, employees posses- have been in entitles, applicable to all of— early property sion of the Hobbs’ since continuation, or in- commencement currently possession and are thereof....” employment pro- cluding the issuance or reply dispute motion does Hobbs’ cess, administrative, judicial, or of a other ac- control land at is FHA’s against proceeding tion the debtor that was or party opposing summary judgment [If sue. have been could commenced before proposed motion does contest uncontrovert- title, commencement of the case under this facts, the are deemed admitted if the ed facts against to recover a claim the debtor that arose judgment as a movant shows that it is entitled to before the commencement of case under Mooney Young of law. Christian matter Mens this title ... Tulsa, (Okla. Greater Ass'n (e) Thirty days request after a under subsec- of ]; Courts, 1993) 13(a), Rule for the Rules District (d) stay tion of this section for relief from the O.S.Supp.1993, App. provides perti Ch. any against property act of the estate under section, (a) nent stay subsection of this such is ter- All set in the state- respect party "... material facts forth with minated to the in interest court, supported by request, making ment of movant which are such unless after hearing, stay admitted notice and a such contin- admissible evidence shall deemed orders conveyed by quit claim acre tract was I. cross-appellee,
from Hobbs Melvin R. CAMPBELL, UNDER BAILEY v. 862 P.2D (Reed), February following Reed (OKLA.1991), DEED, ISSUED sale to FHA. FHA filed PURSUANT TO JUDICIAL PRO- action when Hobbs and Reed refused to clear CEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN VIO- LATION ANOF AUTOMATIC STAY title to entire tract.6 Hobbs counter- BANKRUPTCY, IN IS VOID. summary judg- and he claimed moved for Hobbs asserts that FHA’s title to the asserting ment that the deed issued land at issue is void because it was issued void to the foreclosure sale was because the stay violation of an automatic in bankruptcy. sale conducted in violation the auto- that, FHA present contends under the facts stay. matic defect in *4 denied ed, if the posses deed holder was actual judgment and it asserted that Hobbs’ claim sion and control of the to the title property may by five-year attacked on the was barred statute of limita- validity. basis the deed’s 93(1) (3).7 § 12 tions under O.S.1991 and trial court The sustained Farmers’ motion for Bailey on Camp Hobbs relies bell, (Okla.1991) 862 P.2d 467-68 for the summary judgment. Appeals Court of deed, proposition that the issued in violation holding 2013(C),8 § affirmed that 12 O.S.1991 stay, of the automatic is Bailey pre void. involving mandatory the effect of counter- question sented the of whether an appeal limitation, on statutes of apply claims did not stay debtor an commenced after to titles obtained adverse un- appeal issued barred a second of the same 93(1) § 12 O.S.1991 der and which it stay question once the lifted. This Court adopted repose majority position Bailey denominated as statutes of rather hold judicial that proceedings undertaken af granted than as statutes of limitation.9 We party bankruptcy ter files for and an auto 3,May certiorari on to determine stay nullity. matic issues are a This issue is Appeals opinion whether Court of was at deed, governed by Bailey in re issued —the Bailey Campbell, variance with sponse to the foreclosure action and the sale (Okla.1991) and whether title vested in execution, on is pursu void—it executed 93(1) § FHA to 12 O.S.1991 and judicial proceedings ant conducted in viola (6).10 stay.11 tion the automatic purpose summary judgment opposing party out unless arise of the same transac- specifically occurrence, by the controverted statement of tion or the counterclaim shall not party supported by adverse which is admis- be barred a statute of limitation notwith- sible evidence....” standing that it barred at the time the respond We that note Hobbs' failure to this filed, petition was and counterclaimant particular fact did not in a result confession of precluded recovering shall not be from an af- Stores, Inc., Spirgis judgment. v. Circle K judgment....” firmative (Okla.Ct.App.1987) (Approved 684-85 Court.). publication Supreme 93(1) (6), § 9. Title 12 and O.S.1991 see note supra. 6. Title to this tract is not at issue on certiorari. 1, supra. See note (6), 93(1) § 10. Tifie 12 and O.S.1991 see note supra. (6), 93(1) § 7. Title see note supra. appar- We 11. need not the effect of determine an 2013(C) provides perti- request by 8. Title O.S.1991 ent Bank to lift the automat- Land nent stay bankruptcy. ic Exhibit "B" to FHA’s copy answer brief in chief is a and brief of the C. "... COUNTERCLAIMEXCEEDING OP- bankruptcy proceeding. docket sheets in the It CLAIMS; POSING OF STATUTES LIMITA- appears copy from this that the Land Bank filed may TION. A counterclaim not di- application stay to lift the automatic on Octo- recovery sought by minish or defeat the application ber that the FHA asserts opposing party. may exceeding claim relief unopposed in the action and that in amount or different in kind from that 362(e) (1996), sought pleading opposing party. under 11 in the of the U.S.C. see note supra, request stay Where counterclaim and claim of the for relief from an automatic prescriptive deed is not a counterclaim to a
II. However, meaning §of suit within the (6), AND UNDER petition in indicates FHA’s amended error DEED WHICH IS VALIDLY VOID premised title action was not on that MAY BE AT- NOT RECORDED Rather, possession alone. the lender IF THE OWNER OF REC- TACKED through also claimed title the sheriffs deeds IN BEEN POSSESSION HAS on and March ORD issued December REAL FOR OF THE PROPERTY validity puts 1986.14 This contention THE PERIOD. STATUTORY at issue. claim recognizes that his falls
Hobbs
statutory
The fundamental rule of
year
statute of limitations
outside
Legislative in
construction is to discern the
93(1).12 However,
contained
12 O.S.1991
statutory
Generally rules of
construc
tent.
timely.
contends that his counterclaim
he
applied if the
tion will not be
a statute
will
relies
12 O.S.1991 201313 which
Hobbs
clearly expressed.15
agree with
We
Hobbs
arising
claim
clear,
mandatory
from the
express
allows counterclaims
lan
although
2013(C)17
opposing party
to be
guage
asserted
12 O.S.1991
period
expired
has
when the
arising
the limitations
that a
out of
same
counterclaim
argues
petition
that the
petition is filed.
as the
transaction or occurrence
*5
involving
by prescription
by
in
of limita
issue
a suit
title
shall
be barred
a statute
occupied
agree
12
is whether the real estate has been
tions. We also
that
O.S.1991 93
requisite
period.
in
case law
by the claimant for the
time
has been denominated Oklahoma
Looking
validity of
a
statute.18
at the
an attack on
the
as
limitations
It asserts that
the
thereto,
thirty
days
subsequent
That
a Correction Sheriff's
which is not contested within
However,
by
Osage
of
stay being
Deed was executed
the Sheriff
in
the
results
the
lifted.
Oklahoma,
17th,
County,
of March
under date
brief
sheet
as an exhibit to the
docket
attached
1986,
Plaintiff,
in favor of the
said Correction
party may
appeal.
in
on
[A
not found
the record
Conveyance being
of
recorded
Sheriff's Deed
by
supplement
appeal
injecting
the record on
County
Osage
the
of
in
Office of
Clerk
it
that was not before
trial
into material
Oklahoma,
23rd, 1986,
County,
on March
at
Dyke
Hosp., 861 P.2d
court.
v. Saint Francis
19;
p.m.,
Page
2:53
in
at
o'clock
Book 693
295,
(Okla.1993); Hulsey v. Mid-Amer
299-300
copy
Conveyance
of said Sheriff's Deeds of
Co.,
932,
(Okla.
777
ica
P.2d
936
Ins.
Preferred
hereto,
being
'A'
Exhibits
attached
marked
Chamberlin,
721,
1989);
v.
720 P.2d
Chamberlin
incorporated
‘B’ and
herein
reference....”
(Okla. 1986).]
723
Dawson,
272,
(Okla.
v.
276
15. Cox
911 P.2d
93(1),
2, supra.
12
note
12. Tide
O.S.1991
1996);
Equitable
Ass'n
Taxation v.
Oklahoma
(Okla.
800,
City
City, 901
803
Oklahoma
P.2d
of
8,
Co.,
1995);
2013(C),
Liberty
Oglesby
12
see note
su-
832
13. Title
O.S.1991
v.
Mut. Ins.
P.2d
Odom,
834,
1992);
(Okla.
pra.
839-40
Fuller v.
741
449,
1987).
(Okla.
P.2d
452
per-
petition provides in
14. FHA's first amended
Legislature is
16. The use of "shall"
nor
part
pp.
tinent
2-3:
on
legislative
equiva
mally
mandate
considered
special
execution and
"... That
“must,” requiring interpretation
lent to
term
on the
Order of
entered
this Court
6th
Slater,
Sale
Heirshberg
833
as a command.
v.
P.2d
November, 1985,
day
in
of
Case No. C-85-18
269,
Odom,
(Okla. 1992);
275
Fuller v.
see note
Osage County,
Groves,
in the
Court in and for
15,
District
supra;
v.
in the us bring ease action to before CONCLUSION quiet title is never barred. It follows that cross-petition or counterclaim men- pronounce FHA’s deed is void under our 273, supra, tioned in Sec. was never intend- Bailey Campbell, ment preserve ed to forever the of a for- (Okla.1991) judicial proceedings -un mer to seek owner to recover stay of an dertaken violation land....” Nevertheless, invalid. are *6 legislative policy, specific language §
Consistent with 12 pro of O.S.1991 will, conveyance void in some that instances serve vides even a void voidable deed issued (1) Legal fully muniment title. effect has operative.24 subsection legislatively construing been conferred on imposed some classes Case law the statute has (6) 93, § of void In requirements deeds.20 subsection additional of recordation of the Legislature specifically provided the that possession.25 deed and actual FHA Because five-year necessary guar statute limitations found in sub met all requirements has (1) operate section good would even if the deed or that pass antee even a void deed will title, judgment upon that, it is based is void or voidab we presented, find under the facts interpretation le.21 Our property the statute has the title to the not attacked required also validity. that holder be in deed on the basis of its Sexton, 93(1) 2, (6), § stein v. 18 Okla. P. 410-11 24. Tide 12 see 90 and note supra. prohibition against The on the an attack validity of a deed in contained 12 19. 12 Title O.S.1951 273 in (2) (1), applies only to subsections and (3) apply of the statute. does not subsection (4), relating "... Such setoff or shall not be counterclaim cause to a of action for adverse possession barred statutes of limitations until the within fifteen or to subsection (5), plaintiff relating entry claim of the is so barred....” to an action for and forcible property. detention or detention of forcible 93(6), supra. 20. Title 12 O.S.1991 see note provide: Those subsections 547, 551, City Lehigh, Mobbs v. 655 P.2d 31 "(4) property An action of real (Okla.1982). A.L.R.4th 1 for, provided fifteen hereinbefore within (15) years. 93(6), supra. 21. Title 12 O.S.1991 see note (5) entry An action for forcible and deten- Bearing 22. only v. ex rel. State Commissioners tion or forcible detention of real (Okla.1991); Office, (2) years." Land 668 within two Kiz (Okla.1961); Sarkeys, 361 P.2d zire Bearing 25. v. State ex rel. Commissioners (Okla Bailey, Williams v. Office, supra; Land see Sar note .1954). Kizzire keys, supra; Bailey, see note Williams v. supra. supra. 23. See note note property. lien in Be- mortgage ed their PREVIOUSLY GRANT- CERTIORARI be conducted fore sale could ED; APPEALS OPINION execution COURT OF decree, declared under foreclosure Hobbs VACATED; AFFIRMED. TRIAL COURT September 1985 an and on bankruptcy KAUGER, V.C.J., HODGES, (bankruptcy) stay took effect. automatic HARGRAVE, SUMMERS, LAVENDER, force, in stay was the land While the WATT, JJ. concur. December sold to FHA at sheriffs sale. On 17, 1985, a sher- was confirmed and the sale WILSON, part in concurs C.J. January iffs was recorded part. dissents open, and exclu- FHA has been in notorious SIMMS, in result. J. concurs premises possession since Janu- sive 3,1986. ary OPALA, judgment J. concurs but opinion. Court’s quitclaimed acres of the Hobbs After to Melvin L. Reed. foreclosed tract OPALA, Justice, concurring judgment sought FHA Hobbs and conveyance, opinion. not in the but court’s refused —in Reed’s assistance —which was today court holds that while the Unit- premises. brought FHA clearing to the America, acting through ed States title in this suit to October [FHA], ac- Farmers Home Administration summary sought Hobbs counterclaimed and (earlier Floyd quired title to lands owned judgment, alleging that FHA’s deed is void Hobbs) deed, through a void sheriffs neither by which FHA’s because the sheriff sale — [collectively grantees Floyd Hobbs nor his in viola- acquired conducted —was may challenge FHA’s title because Hobbs] stay. tion of court’s (1) possessed lands than five it has more (a) Hobbs’ counterclaim asserted years and terms of 12 O.S.1991 (b) prem- it to the time barred and held title 93(6)1 prohibit attacking the Hobbs from ises conferred separately to once deed as void. I write 93.3 After denial of terms of O.S.1991 emphasize again2 the difference between counterclaim, summary judgment Hobbs’ statutory lapse extinguishes whose time bar af- Appeals The Court of went to FHA remedy expiration from whose court prius nisi decision. This firmed the it destroys person’s one and transfers granted petition for certiorari. Hobbs’ to another. II *7 I AHAS REME- WHILE HOBBS VIABLE 2013(C), THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION § HE DY UNDER THE THE TITLE TO HAS LOST mortgaged the FHA Hobbs owned and AND PREMISES HENCE CANNOT Bank of [Land and the Federal Land Wichita PREVAIL Osage acres of land in Bank] almost 3907 default, County. Upon argued support At prius his FHA and Land nisi Hobbs’ that, the execution brought the notes foreclos- his counterclaim because Bank suit on 1.The pursuance time thereafter: for the date sold periods interest of action shall have (1) "Actions for the An pertinent ****** [*] action for execution determination therein, hereinafter [*] terms recording can sale or recovery ... within [*] prescribed, after the cause only of 12 accrued, recovery proceeding.... be any [*] of real brought five adverse and at of real [*] deed made in (5) years within § no other properly [*] right 93 are: after or 3. For the 2. See Cruse v. Atoka see senting). judgment based is void or voidable in whole supra upon which such deed or reason, note 1. pertinent terms or jurisdictional 1006 n. 9 precedent County (1995) (Opala, Bd. of action or 12 O.S.1991 otherwise_” or in Com’rs, Okl., judgment proceed- part, J., dis- for (1) fully paragraphs ... be Numbered shall operative regardless whether deed or bought at was left remedy, sale which his land Hobbs was with a bare sans the conducted in violation the automatic bank- right accompany critical that must it. title,
ruptcy stay, FHA’s which on a rests deed, sheriffs must fail. FHA void claimed Ill in defense that Hobbs’ since counterclaim brought first than was more five after SUMMARY recorded, FHA’s deed it stands barred waging For forensic combat the adver 93(1).4 by position terms of FHA’s sary system, arena of the common-law a be Hobbs’ cannot sustained. counterclaim is (like Hobbs) litigant must be armed with both Where, untimely. here, the counter- as (remedium9) remedy an and a live effective by claim advanced a defendant arises out of (the dreit, right droit, common law’s or ius claim, plaintiffs the same as the transaction maius10). components The two have to co though it not time even barred it was exist each has to stand as an efficacious extinguished plaintiffs petition when the right dead cannot be revived force. filed.5 remedy any right viable more a viable than While remedy, Hobbs has a viable can- he may extinguished ever vindicated prevail against FHA’s prescrip- remedy.11 today’s Hobbs loses battle be party interposed tion. latter its adverse remedy cause his but a bare —one 93(l)’s possession offensively invoking § right. not be attached to a live A still- (of years) prescriptive period basis unexpired remedy statutorily redress title, superior pressed which is to that destroyed right in one’s to land does not by Hobbs. NOT ALL LEGAL TIME BARS blueprint victory for forensic make. The EQUAL. ARE CREATED BE TO atWhile dead, right, beyond remedy’s once lies common law adverse could be capacity to resurrect.12 only defensively used bar the true own- —to Although Hobbs’ counterclaim was indeed (of possession) er’s true is not —this timely brought, legally he cognizable had no provisions in Oklahoma. The when to be vindicated. I hence concur in conjunction read with those of 60 O.S.1991 FHA, affirming judgment the trial court’s § 3336 not dispossessed per- bar the today’s but from pronouncement. recede remedy upon son’s but confer occu- also pant premises by title to prescription.7 short, by provi- the terms 333 the (6)8
sions of transmogrified & stand right-conferring
into time bar on whose
lapse title to the land becomes in the vested possessor case. —FHA Gaines, 93(1), For terms of 12 O.S.1991 140 Okl. P. Stolfa supra note 1. *8 pertinent 8. For the terms of 12 O.S.1991 2013(C), See 12
5. whose (6), supra note 1. terms are: "Where a counterclaim and the claim of the legal parlance 9. In medieval Latin remedium opposing party arise out of the same transac- Burton, Legal remedy. means W.C. relief The- occurrence, tion or counterclaim shall (1980). p. saurus be barred a statute of limitation notwith- standing that it was barred at the time Cruse,supra 10. See note 2 at 1006 n. 9. ” petition was filed.... Greer, Okl., Corp. 11. Trust Resolution terms of 60 333 are: (1995). 264-265 period "Occupancy prescribed by for the civil procedure, 567-570; Cruse, supra law of this State as Stolfa, supra sufficient note 7 at recoveiy proper- to bar an Opala, action for Praescriptio note 2 n. 9. at 1006 See also thereto, ty, Temporis Prescriptive denominated a Its Relation to Ease- confers Law, prescription, against Anglo-American which all." ments in the Tulsa L.J. sufficient [Emphasis mine.] 108-109