Title Examination Standards
Chapter 1, App.
Chapter 30. Marketable Record Title Act
§30.9. Effect of Recording Title Transaction During Thirty-Year Period.

The recording of a title transaction subsequent to the effective date of the root of title has the same effect in preserving any interest conveyed as the filing of the notice provided for in Section 74 of the Act.

Authority: 16 O.S. § 72(d); L. Simes & C. Taylor, Model Title Standards, Standard 4.10, at 32-33 (1960). Comment: This standard is operative both where there are claims under a single chain of title and where there are two or more independent chains of title. The following illustrations show how it operates. 1. Suppose A is the grantee of a tract of land in a deed which was recorded in 1960. A mortgage of this land executed by A to X was recorded in 1965. In 1970, a deed conveying the land from A to B was recorded, this deed making no reference to the mortgage to X. In 1999, an instrument assigning X's mortgage to Y was recorded. In 2000, B had a marketable record title. But it was subject to the mortgage held by Y because the assignment of the mortgage was recorded less than thirty years after the effective date of B's root of title. If, however, Y had recorded the assignment in 2001 the mortgage would already have been extinguished in 2000 by B's marketable title; and recording the assignment in 2001 would not revive it. 2. Suppose a tract of land was conveyed to A, B and C as tenants in common, the deed being recorded in 1960. Then in 1965, A and B conveyed the entire tract in fee simple to D and the deed was at once recorded. In 1985, D conveyed to E in fee simple, and the deed was at once recorded. No mention of C's interest was made in either the 1965 or 1985 deeds. Nothing further appearing of record, E had a marketable record title to the entire tract in 1995. This extinguished C's undivided one-third interest. 3. Suppose the same facts, but assume also that, in 1996, C conveyed C's one-third interest to X in fee simple, the deed being at once recorded. This does not help C any. C's interest, having been extinguished in 1995, is not revived by this conveyance. 4. Suppose A, being the grantee in a regular chain of record title, conveyed to B in fee simple in 1960, the deed being at once recorded. Then, in 1965, X, a stranger to the title, conveyed to Y in fee simple, and the deed was at once recorded. In 1985, Y conveyed to Z in fee simple, and the deed was at once recorded. Then suppose in 1987 B conveyed to C in fee simple, the deed being at once recorded. In 1995, Z and C each has a marketable record title, but each is subject to the other. Hence, neither extinguishes the other, and the relative rights of the parties are determined independently of the Act. C's title, therefore, should prevail. 5. Suppose, however, that the facts were the same except that B conveyed to C in 1997 instead of 1987. In that case, Z's marketable record title extinguished B's title in 1995, thirty years after the effective date of Z's root of title, and B's title is not revived by the conveyance in 1997.

History: Adopted December 1964. Printed as a part of Proposal No. 12 of 1964 Real Property Committee, 35 O.B.A.J. 2045, 2046 (1964); and see Exhibit H, id . at 2057-58. Approved, upon recommendation of Real Property Section, by House of Delegates, 36 O.B.A.J. 179, 182 (1965). All references to prior 40-year period deleted, 30 years substituted, and dates in "Comment" corrected to agree with 30year period as per direction of House of Delegates, see Minutes of House for 1977, at 93-96.

The Title Examination Standards Sub-Committee recommended the Comments of Title Standards 30.3, 30.4, 30.5, 30.6, 30.7, 30.8, 30.9, and 30.10 be amended to make the current effect of the Marketable Record Title Act more apparent to examiners. The Real Property Law Section approved, November 18, 2010, and the House of Delegates adopted the proposal on November 19, 2010. (superseded document available)