Title Examination Standards
Chapter 1, App.
Chapter 3. Instruments in the Record
§3.5. Instruments Which Are Altered and Re-Recorded.

The act of re-recording an instrument, after it has been materially altered, does not of itself destroy the rights of the parties to the original unaltered instrument.

To give effect to a material alteration of a previously recorded document affecting title to real property, the instrument must be re-executed, re-acknowledged, re-delivered and re-recorded. However, a grantor cannot unilaterally derogate from a previous grant; see Standard 3.4.

A material alteration to an instrument is defined as an alteration which changes the legal effect of the instrument or the rights and liabilities of the parties to the original instrument.

Authority: 15 O.S. § 239; Briggs v. Sarkey, 418 P.2d 620 (Okla. 1966); Smith v. Fox, 289 P.2d 126 (Okla. 1954); Boys v. Long, 268 P.2d 890 (Okla. 1954); DeWeese v. Baker-Kemp Land Trust Corporation, et al., 187 Okla. 1341, 102 P.2d 884 (1940); Sandlin v. Henry, 180 Okla. 334, 69 P.2d 332 (1937); Criner v. Davenport-Bethel Co., 144 Okla. 74, 289 P. 742 (1930); Eneff v. Scott, 120 Okla. 33, 250 P. 86 ((1926); Sipes v. Perdomo, 118 Okla. 181, 127 P. 689 (1925); Orr v. Murray, 95 Okla. 206, 219 P. 333 (1923); Francen et ux . v. Okla, Star Oil Co., 80 Okla 103, 194 P. 193 (1921); Patton & Palomar on Land Titles, § 65 (3rd ed. 2003). Comment: What constitutes a material alteration varies depending on the court's analysis of the facts of each case. As to changing a name of a party to an instrument, see Sipes v. Perdomo, Sandlin v. Henry and Criner v. Davenport-Bethel Co., supra, and American National Bank of Wetumka v. Hightower , 87 P.2d 311, 315 (Okla. 1939). Caveat: There is an important distinction in authority between alteration of instruments which evidence a completed and fully executed transaction (deeds, mortgages, etc.) and alteration of instruments which are executory in nature (promissory notes, checks, contracts, etc .). The general rule is that alteration of an executory instrument vitiates the executory duties of non-consenting parties, while unconsented alteration of an instrument evidencing an executed transaction does not destroy the rights of the parties to the original agreement, but does vitiate the altered document. Authority for Caveat: 15 O.S. § 177 (definition of executed and executory); Valley State Bank v. Dean, 47 P.2d 924 (Colo. 1935); McMillan v. Pawnee Petroleum Corp., 151 Okla. 4, 1 P.2d 775 (1931) (deed as executed contract); Eastman Nat. Bank v. Naylor, 130 Okla. 229, 266 P. 778 (1928); First National Bank v. Ketchum, 68 Okla. 104, 172 P. 81 (1918), (material alteration in a negotiable instrument after its execution and delivery as a complete contract avoids it except as to parties consenting to the alteration); 2 Am. Jur. 2d, Alteration of Instruments , § 9.

This standard was proposed as 4.5 by the 1992 Report of the Title Examination Standards Committee, 63 O.B.J. 2903, 2904-5 (10/17/92). The proposal was approved by the Real Property Law Section on November 12, 1992, and adopted by the House of Delegates on November 13, 1992.

The 2020 Title Examination Standards Sub-Committee of the Real Property Law Section recommended the following editorial changes to the Title Standards as they appear on OSCN to bring the printed handbook and OSCN into conformity. The Real Property Section approved the proposal, and the House of Delegates adopted the amendment on November 13, 2020. (superseded document available)