Title Examination Standards
Chapter 1, App.
Chapter 6. Execution, Acknowledgment and Recording
§6.2. Omissions and Inconsistencies in Instruments and Acknowledgments.

Omission of the date of execution from a conveyance or other instrument affecting the title does not, in itself, impair marketability. Even if the date of execution is of peculiar significance, an undated instrument will be presumed to have been timely executed if the dates of acknowledgment and recordation, and other circumstances of record, support that presumption.

An acknowledgment taken by a notary public in another state which does not show the expiration of the notary's commission is not invalid for that reason.

Inconsistencies in recitals or indications of dates, as between dates of execution, attestation, acknowledgment or recordation, do not, in themselves, impair marketability. Absent a peculiar significance of one of the dates, a proper sequence of formalities will be presumed notwithstanding such inconsistencies.

Authority: R. & C. Patton and J. Palomar, Land Titles §§ 350, 353, 359 & 364 (2d ed. 1957); P. Basye, Clearing Land Titles §§ 233-236 & 247-249 (1953); 26 C.J.S., Deeds §§ 22a. & f., & 53a; May v. Archer, 302 P.2d 768 (Okla. 1956); Maynard v. Hustead, 185 Okla. 20, 90 P.2d 30 (1939); Scott v. Scott, 111 Okla. 96, 238 P. 468 (1925). Vol. 1 C.J.S. Acknowledgments § 876; Annot., 29 A.L.R. 980 (1928); Kansas City & S.E. Ry. Co., v. Kansas City & S.W. Ry. Co., 129 Mo. 62, 31 S.W. 451 (1895); Sheridan County v. McKinney, 79 Neb. 220, 112 N.W. 329 (1907); (See also acknowledgment curative statutes). Comment: An indication of the date of execution is not essential for any purpose. It is a recital, like other recitals; important, if the date is in issue; helpful, in any case; presumptively correct, but subject to rebuttal or explanation. The same is true of the date of attestation and, generally, of acknowledgment. The only crucial date, that of delivery, is not normally found in the instrument. Hence, omission of the date from one of an ordinary series of conveyances may be disregarded. Even though a special importance attaches to the date of execution, as in the case of a power of attorney, a presumption of timely execution (e.g., in proper sequence in relation to other instruments) should be indulged if supported by other dates and circumstances of record. As recitals of dates may be omitted or explained, are notoriously inaccurate and are more generally in error than are the actual sequences of formalities, inconsistencies in the indicated dates of formalities (e.g., acknowledgment dated prior to execution; execution dated subsequent to indicated date of recordation) should be disregarded. Further, the inconsistency or impossibility of a recited date should not be regarded as vitiating the particular formality involved. An act curative of the formality will eliminate any question as to its date. If, however, under the circumstances indicated by the record, a peculiar significance attaches to any of the dates (e.g., priorities; important presumption), inconsistency or impossibility should not be disregarded.

History: Second paragraph of standard and second paragraph of citations adopted as B, October 31, 1947, 18 O.B.A.J. 1750 (1947); became 6 on renumbering, 19 O.B.A.J. 223, 224 (1948); enlarged and adopted as 6.2, December 2, 1961, 32 O.B.A.J. 2280 (1961), printed, Id. at 1866-67, 1921-22, 197071 & 2030-31; see also id. at 1425-26.