Title Examination Standards
Chapter 1, App.
Chapter 2. The Abstract
§2.1. Recertification Unnecessary.

It is unnecessary that attorneys require the entire abstract to be certified every time an extension is made. For the purpose of examination, an abstract should be considered to be sufficiently certified if it is indicated that the abstractors were bonded at the dates of their respective certificates. It is not a defect that at the date of the examination the statute of limitations may have run against the bonds of some of the abstractors.

Authority: L. Simes & C. Taylor, Model Title Standards' Standard 1.3, at 12 (1960); Kansas Title Standard 2.2; Montana Title Standard 22; Nebraska Title Standard 22; 74 O.S. §§ 227.14 and 227.29. Comment: 1. Title Standard 26, requiring re-certification of abstractors certificates after five years, adopted November, 1946, was repealed by the House of Delegates on November 30, 1960. The request for withdrawal came from counties where re-certification charges were considered excessive. Investigation disclosed Standard 26 was not in line with similar standards of other states and particularly the model standard prepared by Professor Lewis M. Simes and Mr. Clarence D. Taylor, under the auspices of the Section of Real Property, Probate and Trust Law of the American Bar Association. The 1960 Title Examination Standards Committee recommended that Title Standard 26 be withdrawn and the model standard approved in lieu thereof. The House of Delegates approved this proposal, November 30, 1960, and the new standard re-numbered Standard 1.1. 2. It is not the purpose of the standard to discourage or prevent the examining attorney from requiring re-certification when in the examining attorney's judgment abstracting errors or omissions have occurred, or when the examining attorney has reason to question the accuracy of all or a particular portion of an abstract record. 3. Abstractors in Oklahoma have been required to be bonded since prior to statehood. The 1899 Okla. Sess. Laws p. 53 was enacted March 10, 1899. It has been retained since that time subject to the Revision of 1910, which added a provision for a corporate surety and made it clear that the abstractor's liability on the bond extended to any person injured. 4. The limitation applicable to an action for damages on an abstractor's bond is five years from the date of the abstractor's certificate, 74 O.S. § 227.29. In 1984, these provisions were made a part of the "Oklahoma Abstractors Law", 74 O.S. § 227.14 .

Adopted as 20, November 16, 1946, 17 O.B.A.J. 1729 (1946), printed, id, at 1754; became 26 on renumbering, 19 O.B.A.J. 223, 228 (1948). Standard 26 was deleted and replaced with a new standard as above on November 30, 1960, 1960 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Oklahoma Bar Association at 21-22. On December 3, 1960, it was reported to the House of Delegates that the Real Property Section recommended to the House that Standard 26 be repealed but that it not be replaced. Upon motion, the proposal was referred to the Executive Council for study and action, id. at 102-103. The Executive Council then referred the matter to the 1961 Title Examination Standards Committee for study and presentation in 1961, Minutes, December 15, 1960, Executive Council Minute Book 1959-60, at 881. The Real Property Committee, predecessor to the Title Examination Standards Committee, offered the new version of Standard 26, (renumbered as 1.1) to the Real Property Section in 1961 as Recommendation Number 7. The Real Property Section referred the matter back to the Real Property Committee for further study, and the recommendation was withdrawn from the House of Delegates, 32 O.B.A.J. 2280 (1961). The recommendation is printed at length, id. at 1868, 1923, 1972, & 2032. The 1962 Real Property Committee's Report recommended that the caption to this standard be amended by adding the word "UNNECESSARY" so that the caption would read "RECERTIFICATION UNNECESSARY" and recommended the addition of authorities and comments, see Recommendation (1), 33 O.B.A.J. 2157 (1962) and Exhibit A, id. at 2161. The recommendation was approved by the Real Property Section and the House of Delegates, id . at 2469, November 29, 1962.