Title Examination Standards
Chapter 1, App.
Chapter 29. Simplification of Land Titles Act
§29.1. Remedial Effect.

The Simplification of Land Titles Act, 16 O.S. §§ 61-63, 66 (§§ 64-65 repealed effective April 10, 1980), is remedial in character and should be relied upon with respect to such claims or imperfections of title as fall within its scope.

Authority: Lane v. Travelers Ins. Co., 230 Iowa 973, 299 N.W. 553 (1941); Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 83 N.W.2d 800, 71 A.L.R.2d 816 (1957); L. Simes & C. Taylor, The Improvement of Conveyancing by Legislation 271 (1960); P. Basye, Clearing Land Titles § 374 (1953), & § 182 (1962 Pock. Part); Patton & Palomar on Titles § 563 (3d ed. 2002); Ashabranner, An Introduction to Oklahoma's First Comprehensive Land Title Simplification Law , 14 Okla. L. Rev. 516 (1961). Comment: 1. The Simplification of Land Titles Act is similar to a recording statute. It is similar to the marketable title acts adopted in Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa and other states, which have been held constitutional on the grounds that the legislature, which has the power to pass recording statutes originally, can amend or alter those statutes and require recording or the filing of a notice of claim to give notice of existing interests, and can extinguish claims of those who fail to re-record, Lane v. Travelers Ins. Co., 230 Iowa 973, 299 N.W. 553 (1941); Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 83 NW.2d 800, 71 A.L.R.2d 816 (1957); L. Simes & C. Taylor, The Improvement of Conveyancing by Legislation, 271 (1960); P. Basye, Clearing Land Titles, § 374 (1953), & § 186 (2d ed. 1970); R. & C. Patton & J. Palomar, Patton & Palomar on Titles § 563 (3d ed. 2002). In many situations the Simplification Act operates against defects made in the past by parties trying to complete the transaction correctly but who failed to do so in every detail. It will give effect to the intentions of the parties which were bona fide. Usually a full consideration was paid. To this extent the results will be those of a curative statute. A similar curative statute in Oklahoma, 16 O.S. § 4 has been held constitutional, Saak v. Hicks, 321 P.2d 425 (Okla. 1958). In a few situations the Act will operate against defects considered jurisdictional. In the past, a statute of limitations, with its requirements of adverse possession, followed by a suit to quiet title was considered necessary to eliminate jurisdictional defects. The Simplification Act provides a new and additional method by invalidating the claim and creating marketable title unless claimant files notice of claim within the time provided in the act (or is in actual possession of the land). Since the Act protects the rights of claimants in actual possession as against a purchaser, the reasoning in Williams v. Bailey 268 P.2d 868 (Okla. 1954), reading a requirement for adverse possession into the tax recording statute, is not applicable. 2. Where a seller does not have a marketable title due to defects for which the Act affords protection to a "purchaser for value," and no notice has been filed as required by the Act, the attorney for the purchaser may advise the purchaser that a purchase for value will afford protection of the Act and that such a purchaser will acquire a valid and marketable title, provided no one is in possession claiming adversely to the seller.

History: The 1962 Real Property Committee Report recommended the adoption of this standard, see Recommendation (2), 33 O.B.A.J. 2157 (1962) and Exhibit B, id. at 2162. Approved by Real Property Section and House of Delegates, id. at 2469, November 29, 1962.