*1 1267; Bailey Bailey, v. 1994 OK 867 P.2d Fuels, Comm’n,

Koch Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax OK v. Davidson

Gregory, 1989 OK 780 P.2d 679. face, 13 Examined on their

twenty given jury instructions

evaluation of this action demonstrate no

erroneous statement of fundamental law. prejudicial

Without an erroneous law,

statement fundamental this goes

Court’s review of the instructions no

further.

¶ 14 Finding no fundamental error case,

examination of the record in the instant opinion Appeals of the Court of Civil

vacated and the of the trial court

affirmed.

¶ 16 CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY

GRANTED. COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

OPINION VACATED. JUDGMENT OF

THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED.

ALL THE JUSTICES CONCUR. MACY, al.,

Robert H. et

Plaintiff/Appellants,

OKLAHOMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Bogle,

NUMBER and Ron Frank

Kellert, Wayne Dempsey, Thelma R.

Parks, Yeargain, Silver, Tom Terri Carter, capaci-

Michael in their official

ties as members Board of Edu-

cation of Oklahoma School District 89, Defendants/Appellees.

No.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

June

SUMMERS, Chief Justice. Vice ¶ May of a former school dis- residents declaratory judg- successfully bring a trict an annexation elec- action to invalidate ment They may thirty years earlier? tion held judg- Court’s affirm the District not. We existing Defendant in favor of the ment school district.

¶2 residents in Okla- Plaintiffs are 317 residing in City District 1-89 homa School District 1-5. the former Arcadia School suit District Court 1996 the Plaintiffs filed seeking declaratory judgment annexing Arcadian their elections City district were district to the Oklahoma City District 1-89 void. Oklahoma School defended, argued that the elections were event, void, any an action filed but too late to set thirty years thereafter came the elections. aside City and Arcadia 3 The Oklahoma adjacent in school districts were in that were held Two annexation elections annexed Arcadia year, the results which City School District 1-5 Oklahoma School District I-89.1 ¶4 July election was held The first quarter of land in the to annex a section July year 6th of Arcadia District. On transferred a Board of Education State Arcadia District portion of the School small of the Oklahoma “transportation area” July 20th the Okla- District. On School County Superintendent Schools homa declaring annexation. The signed an order for annexation petition order stated (a Sunday), July filed on had been 19, 1966, July on that the election was held law, according given that notice was approved a vote the annexation was part 2. That of Arcadia transferred of 8 to City transportation area to the Oklahoma Welch, Smith, Jones, Sherry L. Laurie W. subject portion purportedly the same Smith, P.C., City, for Oklahoma Jones & July election. 19 annexation Defendants/Appellees. argue that the first election 5 Plaintiffs (1) improper no- reasons: Koss, was void for two Mcnulty, Koss & Associ- T. Mark Cole, tice, satisfy the Cole, failure to ates, Bumgarner & Robert W. be based requirement that annexation Plaintiffs/Appellants. City, for losing danger population its was in reports was los- student that Arcadia 1. Defendant’s brief voluntary independent ing patrons in 1966 due to its school district status. desegregation program, of its lower and because adjacency of the two districts. Plaintiffs Plaintiffs are correct that at the time argue first election that the notice of the election did not was held the Arcadia and Okla- adjacent comply homa school districts were not with the statute and that the voters to each other. Two school were did not districts have actual notice of the election. situated between the Arcadia and Oklahoma governing The relevant statutes notice are 70 *3 districts, City those Oakdale and Jones. O.S.Supp.1965 § § 7-1 and 70 4- O.S.1961 argues 16.2 Defendant that the date in the ¶ argue 7 Plaintiffs thus the first filing petition order for the for annex- adjacent districts, election did not involve error, typographical ation must have a been adja- and the second election did not involve being only days two before the election and cent districts if the first election of no being Sunday, day on a a on which the argue part effect. Plaintiffs also that no Superintendent’s open. office was never properly transpor- Arcadia was in a created provides procedure Section 7-1 the for an tation district at the time of the first annex- upon filing annexation election the of an an- ation election. petition.

nexation ¶ summary judg- 8 Both sides moved for ment, granted judg- and the District Court ¶ August petition 6 Then in of 1966 a was ment to City the Oklahoma School District. circulated in Arcadia to annex the entire appealed, Plaintiffs which we have retained City. Arcadia school district to Oklahoma pursuant Okla.Sup.Ct.R. deny 1.24. We petition August The was by received on argument. the motion for oral We need not County Superintendent the of Schools. The evidentiary detail all the support material in September second election was held on respective Summary Judg- Motions for majority 1966. A of the voters in the Arca- by parties ment filed both because we do not approval dia district voted of the annexation. reach the challenge merits the to either challenge by arguing Plaintiffs this election ruling compelled election. by Our the Arcadia district did not meet the procedural posture in which we find the case. statutory provisions for annexation to the City district. The statute is 70 ¶ 9 The Oklahoma school dis O.S.Supp.1965 § 7-1. argues trict declaratory judgment pro ceeding may challenge not be used to (a) territory comprising part all or place in remedy provided by election school district be annexed to an statute showing when there has been no adjacent district, school or statutory remedy inadequate. We transportation in district the same area agree. transportation, authorized to furnish or to (2) districts, ¶ ap- or more such when 10 After an annexation election in 1966 proved at an annexation election called and provided the statute County Super- that the by county superintendent conducted intendent of Schools issue an order either pursuance petition schools in for an- annexation, declaring denying or based signed by majority nexation of the school days election results. Within ten after district electors in proposed this order 25% of the school district electors annexed, added). (emphasis to be ... eligible who were to vote at the election could 7.1(a) § O.S.Supp.1965 provides part: 2. 70 purpose annexing part of a school district during any peri- more than once twelve month ... Such election shall be held within fifteen od. (15) days county superintendent after the provides § part: 70 O.S.1961 4-16 petition, public schools receives such at some time, place purpose Notice of the of such place in the school district which the area special meeting given by annual or situated, shall be affected is (2) between the hours of two (10) clerk of (6) the board of education least ten p.m., p.m., o'clock and six o’clock days prior meeting by publication given by county in one notice thereof shall be (1) newspaper general issue of a superintendent circulation schools in same manner pf special meetings posting in the district printed written the school district districts; meeting provided, notices public electors of school that the of such in five county superintendent places schools shall not be the district the clerk of the board required to call or hold an election for the of education. court, in accor- must be or a district to the dis- Court Superintendent’s order appeal the legal requirements § for obtain- O.S.Supp.1965 7-1. No one with the dance trict court. in 1966. statutory procedure ing this such review. followed in 1996 petition filed a 11 Plaintiffs plaintiffs Generally, assessing declaratory judgment pursuant requesting a ex standing in controversies courts declaratory suit for to O.S.1991 and the type of claim made amine both neither pursuant 1651 is that claim. party pressing interest of equitable, assumes the strictly legal nor but available we have relief is When controversy Carpen at issue. nature of particular claims to be addressed required ¶38, 17, 645 P.2d Carpenter, 1982 OK ter v. provided particular procedure Stillwater, 476, 481; Hoffman adjudication of that claim. See law for ¶ 18, present *4 County Sequoyah Election e.g. Coleman brought declaratory judgment proceeding is Bd., 96, ¶2, 935, in which 762 P.2d 1988 OK attacking an elec express purpose of for the remedy for con said that inasmuch as we elections), (actually, so the nature of tion candidacy was testing the of a candidate challenge. controversy is an election 5-118, party provided 26 O.S.1981 ¶ they petition alleges that 12 Plaintiffs’ irregularities petition could not use citizens, taxpayers and or duly qualified “are alter pursuant 8-120 as an to O.S.1981 District of Oklahoma School voters Similarly, in Brickell v. State native method. 89, (formerly Dis- Arcadia School Number 362, 785, Bd., 221 P.2d Election 203 Okla. 1-5).” relating allegation No is made trict (1950), statutory hearing explained that a we to 25% of plaintiffs these in expanded to on a recount could be joining appeal challenging an in an electors voting testimony allegations of ir clude on course, election, and, the case of annexation legislative authority ex regularities when no thirty years expira- after brought some expansion. isted for such case is day period. ten This tion of the according to the obviously prosecuted ¶ interest must a 15 What sort of procedure for an annex- statutorily provided to heard a suit to plaintiff have order be challenge. ation election an election? the creation invalidate Where ¶ variety procedures have challenged proceed in a of a school district challenge to elections: been used proper quo warranto the ing in the nature warranto, mandamus, injunction, relief, quo legal representatives of the plaintiffs are the declaratory judgment. No exercise and state, Attorney District General or i.e. the state, power by a judicial quasi-judicial (County Attorney). In State ex rel. Attorney controversy beyond entity in election an Holtzclaw, 163, 2 McFadyen v. 151 Okla. superintending jurisdiction to re this Court’s (1931), proceeding was such a P.2d 1022 extraordinary writ. appropriate view incorporation of a brought challenging the McKye Election Bd. State Okla v. State quoted approval district. We ¶ 5, 954; homa, 15, Stover 1995 OK Kansas, ex Supreme Court of and from the Bd., 6, County 1975 OK Election v. Alfalfa private plaintiffs had no stand plained that ¶ 1020, 1022; Boevers v. Election ing challenge the district’s creation. to ¶ 138, 6, County, 1981 OK Bd. Canadian officials, an provided its own The state has 1333,1335. explained have also P.2d We attorney, county to Attorney and a General empowered to issue manda this Court is corporate or challenge validity purpose an election board for mus to state, organizations in this quasi corporate arbitrary of discretion or correcting abuse an cities, counties, and school like townships, of a ministerial compel performance to ordinarily justicia- districts; it is no Bd. Okla. duty. Box v. State Election private individuals that ¶¶ concern of ble 16-18, 526 P.2d County, 1974 OK organiza- public Bd., these subdivisions Election Brown v. State infir- However, have some 140,152. tions of the state exercise mity organization. elections, whether,-by their this power to review McFadyen, 2 State ex rel. P.2d at the State of Oklahoma. Dowell v. Board quoting, High Education, supra. Schur v. Rural School District (1922), No. 112 Kan. 210 P. McGowen, 112 P.2d at 355. added). (emphasis Thus, private individuals as residents equitable have no relief to void possess Private individuals thus do not organizing election a school district. legally cognizable challenge interest creation of a quo school district in a warranto ¶ equity 17 This Court has used proceeding. provide remedy purpose for the of chal lenging an invalid if there is no concept 16 This is also found in our statutory provision allowing an election con opinions declining equitable give relief to test, if challenge involves civil or plaintiffs challenging a school district consoli- property rights, political rights. rather than dation. In McGowen v. Board Education Walker v. Oak Volunteer Fire Protec Cliff Union Graded School Dist. No. Dist., 31, 14, tion (1941), Okla. P.2d 355 suit was today 768.3 Plaintiffs in our case do not seek brought by seeking enjoin individuals upon alleged injuries relief based to their consolidation of two school districts. The nor, property civil rights, alleged purpose proceeding was to avoid Walker, procedure an election that denied effect of an response election held in to a call *5 right notice of a to vote on an issue that County Superintendent. the We said property rights any affected without statuto The trial eourt sustained a demurrer to ry remedy Rather, appeal. their claim is petition the on ground the sole the solely that the elections did proper not follow plaintiffs legal capacity were without to procedure and that for they this reason must action; maintain the that such suit could be held to be void. be prosecuted only by instituted and the 37, 18 In School Dist. No. Washita

Attorney County General Attorney or the Latimer, 620, County v. 190 Okla. County. McCurtain only This is the brought by action was a school assigned appeal. error on district, officers, its and certain of its resi- opinion enjoin

We are of county superintendent the and hold that dents to the from sustaining making order the demurrer must be an annexation order. We said that: In affirmed. Dowell v. Board Edu- Legislature create, at will alter or cation, 342, 771, 185 Okl. this court abolish school consulting districts without passed upon a similar situation. Under the inhabitants people may thereof. The authority the appears of that decision it matter, be denied a in the voice and denied plaintiffs that the cannot maintain this ac- right appeal- However, the any at- They tion. have no voice in the affairs of tempt part on Legislature the of the to the school except district in those matters deny parties right judi- interested the to a designated by A statutes. school district cial question determination of the whether is a agency subordinate of the state. The provisions of the act have been com- only agency object authorized to plied with would constitute a denial of due proceeding, election, process authorized Legislature law. event the Jones, political rights 3. We have (1933), defined thus: 165 Olda. (we political right approval stated the rule is a exercisable with collected government. courts); rights opinions administration of Political City from other Council of power participate directly consist in the Milwee, to McAlesterv. 31 Okla. 122 P. 173 indirectly management in the establishment or (1912), (same). rights distinguished Political are government. rights protected by from those that are statutes Huston, Attorney State ex rel. General v. 27 Okla. enforcement, creating judicial remedies for their (1910), quotes 113 P. omitted. Jarrett, J., supra, State ex rel. (Riley, Robinett v. This court has stated on several occasions that a concurring specially), proper- civil from equity political right. court of will not enforce a ty rights protected by equity when no Jarrett, State ex rel. Robinett v. 200 Okla. exists, Walker, remedy supra. P.2d See State ex rel. Cameron improperly had of Education remedy- Board adequate State provide an fail to should by adding a district transportation to parties could resort created ease the in such District to validity order. Arcadia School portion injunction to test the Plaintiffs remedy speedy District. efficient and School But where an Board injunction not lie. minutes of the State provided, rely will was not transportation district that the show P.2d at 282. Id. 126 of that the rules in accord with created the individuals did explained that We then ten statutory appeal within Board. But the right affected property possess procedure days provided after the annexation. in the elec- adjudicating claims of flaws Education, 185 Board In Dowell v. tion such as that. a similar where Okl. only pro- say involved, that the “But 21 This is not to said: question was an- district challenging a school independent district are cedure for the voters by the statuto- rights in 1966 was any property nexation election not divested declaratory example, district For ry appeal. to their school addition by com- change in such district. A school has been used judgment procedure aor agency successfully chal- peting is a subordinate school districts district State, Legislature can abolish Dist. and the School lenge an annexation. Jet-Nash change without County their boundaries v. Cherokee them No. 1-4 Alfalfa School Dist. consulting County, the inhabitants. No. School Dist. 1-46 of Alfalfa Zediker, 1896, 599, 47 P.. No. 17 v. Okl. have also P.2d 553. We property have no remedy The individuals limit one school district’s declined to them, give and thus the failure rights adjacent patently challenge an district’s independent district inhabitants of usurp the acts would void acts when such provide for an matter or to a voice proceed right of the former district a fatal defect.” appeal is not Tryon according to statute. an annexation *6 Carrier, Dist. No. 125 v. Depend. School County, 126 No. Washita Dist. School But this 1970 OK P.2d at 282. controversy where a present a does not case ¶ challenge to the second Plaintiffs’ 19 attempted annex the has to school district non-contig- it combined two election because district and territory the former Arcadia that into one is one districts uous school alleging justify sought to its act then brought in 1966. For exam- have been could by the original annexation invalidity of the 66, Pot- Dist. No. ple, Independent in School City District. Oklahoma School County Dependent School Dist. tawatomie we 1953 OK No. ¶ rely v. Oak upon Walker Plaintiffs created a school district was said that when Dist., supra. Fire Protection Volunteer Cliff non-contiguous dis- consisting two or more equitable help The not them. But it does election, to appeal pursuant by an an tricts' upon remedy in was based allowed Walker court, filed in the district could be statute statutory proce- complete of a absence power to invalidate had the and that court District election a Fire Protection dure for non-contiguous nature the election. ¶ P.2d at contest. readily ascertainable annexation was timing the suit assayed 768. We election, in that participating those electors (20 months the election brought to invalidate one, nothing have and would in this as it was election) that laches did and held after the challeng- in case from them either prohibited of this But the electors not bar the electors. ground.4 on this ing the election provided with election were 1966 annexation contest, election statutory procedure ¶20 for an a challenge the second The other inapposite. and July in of 1966 the Walker that the claim election is nothing to restrict in the statute appeal that there is to a district explained that an We have power and determine judicial to hear remedy court's every speedy, in plain, and efficient a court is Dist. No. Washi issue. School material original proceeding to test the an nature of the validity County, P.2d at 283. superintendent, ta and of the order ¶ rely upon City judgment an 23 Plaintiffs also that seeks invalidate Co., Rig, Mfg. v. Tulsa Reel & upon grounds Maud that could have been raised City Okla. P.2d 792 statutory contesting the procedure city annexing Maud we said that a ordinance election. collaterally could be attacked when ¶ agree 26 We Plaintiffs that cer- the ordinance on its face was invalid and the tain circumstances an annexation be col- judicial proceeding purpose for the was Maud, laterally supra. attacked. challenging upon a tax based ordinance. However, agree with we Defendant upon a Thus collateral attack an annexation upon collateral attack an annexation election ordinance is allowed in certain circumstances. possessed must be an based interest today challenge But the suit not does a tax plaintiffs impropriety other than mere upon an based annexation. Rather it is a in the formation of district. Id. Wheth- challenge formation district any persons, er itself, Plaintiffs this case previously, private and as we stated otherwise, actually possess an such interest ordinarily justiciable individual has no con- infirmity bring properly and could that would relating organiza- suit cern present such is a matter that McFadyen, tion district. State ex rel. issue supra. before us. ¶24 We hold that when electors of a ¶ judgment the District court possess bring district in favor of I- School District appeal purpose for the of challenging an 89 is affirmed. election, so,

annexation then do not do they may subsequently institute a declar- ¶ C.J., HARGRAVE, KAUGER, atory judgment purpose action for the sole WATT, JJ., GARRETT, GOODMAN, invalidating upon grounds the election Special Judges, in lieu HODGES and adjudicated by could have been LAVENDER, JJ., having each whom filed appeal.5 Declaratory cannot be disqualification, his concur. remedy challenge as a used an election in place remedy provided by statute ¶ OPALA, JJ., SIMMS and concur there showing when has been no judgment. statutory remedy inadequate. And the timely electors made no claim that the statu- WILSON, J., 30 ALMA concurs tory procedure inadequate. was somehow result. *7 sum, 25 In Plaintiffs who were electors the time of remedy the election had a at ALA, Justice, concurring OP judgment. in challenging Equity for law the election. will ¶ today pronounces 1 The court that be an used to create election contest declaratory-judgment action remedy will not to place statutory remedy in lie where challenge showing validity the of two no has been that the school district made remedy inadequate protect is annexation when legally to elections there has been no cognizable right. requested showing remedy wag- Plaintiffs have the for improper declaratory ing relief in of a inadequate. the form such contests was identify appears challenge standing gerrymandering record to no Plaintiffs as to of the current residents of the school former district. district. Plaintiffs were not who electors of the authority necessary district, No citation of should be for elsewhere, they either because resided or proposition person right has no to majority, had not pos- reached and thus did not an voter contest election that the was not entitled statutory right sess a to contest the election'—are participate to in. Plaintiffs must have been merely lacking remedy they pos- do not — electors of the school district at the time of the challenge sess to the election in a contest standing possess bring annexation to proceeding. County Wagoner Election Bd. Cf. proceeding challenging an election contest Plunkett, 529-530, Hunt, formation the district. See Shaw v. (Court explained equity would not be used to 116 S.Ct. U.S. 135 L.Ed.2d 207 remedy correct the absence aof when there was (1996), explained where the Court circumstances right). an absence of a residing where a voter of a outside district had II

¶ judg- Although I concur in the court’s analytical ment, from the un- I must recede derpinnings pronouncement. its The short ¶ OF 4 THE ROMAN-LAW CONCEPT controversy is that simple answer to this IN PRESCRIPTION —EMBODIED plaintiffs’ claim de-annexation § 3332— THE TEXT OF 60 O.S.1991 for district, brought thirty years some THE UPON DISTRICT CONFERS acquired present- had its after the district PRESCRIPTIVE UNASSAILABLE boundaries, day by prescription. is barred THE ANNEXED RIGHTS IN ARCA- uninterrupted The district’s continued DIAN IN DISPUTE TERRITORY more than of the annexed area for control HERE years gives legally it a unassailable fifteen Entity qua The District Territorial integrity. its territorial In title to current sum, sought pressed to be is contest is enti- 5 A school district a territorial

time-barred.1 ty,3 geographical which embraces a defined enlarged or area that be diminished I through consolidation or annexation land

THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION of the Arcadian terri- area.4 The lawfulness incorporation challenged tory’s 1-5 [Ar- The Arcadia School District —some thirty years after land area’s annex- incorporated in 1966 District] cadia became boundary- ation —for in the two critical flaws [Dis- into the Oklahoma School District 1-89 view, my shaping elections. the District annexed, by election held First be trict]. longer required justify legitimate is no July quarter was a section of land origin the annexed territo- its control over in the Arcadia District. re- situated ry. is so it has been continu- This because now in contest here mainder operating ously as a district within the entire Septem- annexed an election held it for land area which is now constituted year. ber of that Residents former (now challenge longer prescriptive period of fifteen defunct) than the Arcadia District years.5 occupancy area has validity Its of the land this lawsuit critical adverse, (visible), open been exclusive elections. periods prescribed, after the cause of 60 333 are: hereinafter 1. The terms O.S.1991 accrued, have and at no other of action shall period, prescribed by "Occupancy civil for time thereafter: procedure, any law or of this state sufficient (1) recovery proper- An for the real action proper- recovery bar action for the execution, recovery ty or for the real sold on thereto, ty, a title denominated a title confers sold, kind, partitioned or estate against prescription, which is sufficient all.” proceedings, conveyed pursuant partition mine.) (Emphasis sale, judicial or an action or other recovery supra of real estate distributed under decree 60 O.S.1991 see 2. For the terms of probate administration or district note 1. brought proceedings, when ... within five regarded legal recording as a divi- years 3. A "school district” after the date of the territory, pursuance pro- for edu- created the state sion deed made in ceeding, of years sale *8 (5) purposes. 70 O.S.1991 The terms of or within five after date cational § entry partition, provide: judgment of the final of 1-108 partition no is in kind where sale had any is as area or "A school district defined (5) years proceedings; five after the or within pri- territory comprising legal entity, whose recording distribution ren- of the decree of providing mary purpose education, free school is of dered the district court in an administration boundary are lines a matter whose proceeding.... probate or record, public and the area of which consti- of (2) recovery proper- of real An action for the mine.) (Emphasis complete tax unit.” tutes administrators, executors, guard- ty or sold seq. ians, O.S.Supp.1997 §§ et 4. 7-101 upon judgment 70 order or of an sale, (5) brought directing ... five such within perti- provide § 12 93 5. The terms of O.S.1991 recording years date of of the deed after the part: nent pursuance of the sale. made in (3) recovery proper- for of real recovery property, An action of or "Actions for the real taxes, (5) years ty any for within five after sold adverse for determination of deed,.... therein, recording brought date of the tax only within the of can be interest 812 Moreover,

peaceable.6 (visible), notorious, if open even the critical and con- exclusive 11 void, facially precise annexation are in fact genre possessory elections tinuous.” of (five- plaintiffs’ urge, as the an dealing manage- even shorter we are here interest with is year) period prescriptive might government have been rial control schools in a de- of triggered.7 area. land fined Prescription Legal Prescription Foreign —A Concept— Legal System To Comes Oklahoma’s Lapse 6 brings of time that about a Partly Law, Through The Common rights from the true holder title transfer of Though Concept Its Core Is Derived the adverse claimant comes to us from the Explicit Legislative Adoption From prescription.8 Roman-law doctrine known as Prescription provides a acquiring Prescription mode of an came to Oklahoma law pi’operty interest in through of another ap- from two different sources. It was first long-continued period pos- plied of acquisition incorporeal nonconsensual inter- of (or sessory land, easements, nonpossessory dominion or use part ests in such as as (or enjoyment).9 Prescriptive occupancy heritage.12 the state’s common-law But inso- use) must be vi nec precario10 nec clam nec prescription acquisi- far as for invocable (visible) —-peaceable, open by lapse and without the tion property title time another, true permission. titleholder’s consent or the concept legal entered our of system through jurisprudence quoted Latin- the enactment 60 O.S.1991 law, language § maxim the common which 333.13 outer reach of the doctrine is qualifying characterizes the attributes ad- not restricted to title contests over to land. holding, “actual, verse is often translated as It application stands extended —and this (4) recovery property England An action Conquest real any fixed cannot be de- for provided for, (15) within gree accuracy. The best estimate is that En- hereinbefore fifteen years. glish began judges apply in the it twelfth or n S[C n n century. % Jfc thirteenth Id. at 268. 1, 2, paragraphs Numbered shall and 3 be fully operative regardless whether the deed Prescription governs 9. possessory both and non- judgment precedent proceeding or the action or possessoiy personal interests in well real as as which such deed or is based is property. Opala, supra note at8 108-110. part, any void reason, or voidable whole or in otherwise; (Em- jurisdictional or ...” 115, 120, 124, Opala, supra 10. note mine.) phasis (citing Bracton, De 222b Legibus Angliae prescription pos- See discussion of and adverse (Woodbine ed.1932)); Snyder, see also David V. session in Part II infra. Rights Possession: For Louisiana’s Brief Law, Legacy Succession to The Roman will, instances, conveyance 7. A void in some (1992) (citing Tulane L.Rev. 1874-75 The Insti- Through serve as a muniment of title. See U.S. Justinian, 4.15.4a). tutes of Admin, Hobbs, Farmers Home v. 1996 OK (the court held that the terms example, acquire 11. For pre- an easement 93(6), supra of 12 O.S.1991 bar note scription, a claimant must (or show the use or attack on an adverse claimant's voida- void hostile, actual, ble) enjoyment notorious, (or open, judgment), brought by deed suit com- exclusive, continuous, lapse statutory' five-year period menced and for full after the 93(1), (2) prescribed (3). period. Holley, Willis v. OK The shorter Nelson, period persons possession runs in favor of Irion v. Okl. deed.) Wells, under a void tax Morris v. 887-888. applies acquisition 12. Oklahoma prescription to Prescription is a term of with a Roman law land, incorporeal interests in such as ease- telling etymology. It is a derivative of Latin ments, part of the State's common-law tradi- "praescriptio", meaning writing. an earlier Price, Winterringer tion. *9 370 Opala, Praescriptio Temporis and Its Relation 918, 922; Irion, supra P.2d note 11 at Prescriptive Law, Anglo-American in Easements the Stettmund, 86, 235, 692, v. 205 Okl. P.2d Telford 107, (1971). Prescrip- 7 TULSA LJ. 112 (1951). 694-95 stranger Anglo-Saxon tion was a to the ancient Sherman, Acquisitive Prescription law. Ex-—Its 333, isting (1912). Uniformity, § 13. For the terms supra World-Wide 21 Yale L.J. 149 of 60 O.S.1991 see precise entry post- The time of its into note 1.

813 only § 9318 of 12 extin terms O.S.1991 sound historical antecedents —to founded on remedy but also con the true owner’s rights guish that resemble variety of land-based a occupant title the upon the adverse Included in the fer franchises.14 common-law by By of governmental prescription.19 force premises are latter class of interests 93(1) §in and § the limitations stand charged providing ser- 333 entities with school right-conferring transmogrified a time territory.15 into legally a defined vices within (or lapse the on whose title to land bar Distinguished territory) in the adverse Possession becomes vested Adverse holder. Prescription by its 8 is best understood comparison pos the of with doctrine adverse Prescriptive Period The as doctrine session. a common-law While initially prescriptive period was only used defen 9 possession adverse could be recovery as immemorial— sively the of known at common law time 16—to bar true owner’s i.e., memory.20 The title ad the time of human date prescription confers on the land — memory year later as the lapse legal and of to be of was fixed occupant verse allows time To offensively.17 conjunction Richard I’s coronation 1189.21 avoid used When read 333, necessity long a proving § the such duration provisions of 60 O.S.1991 the the 16. As 15. See 14. ville, ject). districts. states, U.S. Bluffs two school districts. The ment action to establish the law, universally tween lesser in the thority.’ from themselves. The court Martin, (1926)). ciple By analogy O.S.1991 held conclusive action was established ther of the School District 571, long period ary by cence exercise of prerogative Management Corporation, ence 208 229, (1940); 779, "should be drawn other "Franchise”, boundary N.W. by 143 So. State 230 227 county’s St. in the It must the court invoked prescription. applicable to ” Inland county agencies. 122 The court concluded common-law Ry. royal Ky. (1933); this connection 123, county overlapping of the nation's Id. pressed, nearly dominion and subsisting governmental units such as school Michigan 638, Co. possession W.Va. lines between time 1916, 376, records arise 46 S.Ct. boundary privilege 125 Waterways No. Wasco as (supra v, recognized, that 639 officials along used Greene 13 S.W.2d were (1926); Unger from (1965), 9, State 483, the two establish (1932); was treated as the bound- v. State opined concept, boundary note by 399 P.2d 149 ” (Emphasis (or " overlapping. 114 N.J. the hands disputes the Omaha, dispute sovereignty Line or the v. Harvey Blackstone, 10 S.E.2d title and 'a Co. v. fifty years territory, line relied two branch Fernandez, 1), principle boundary king's grant Omaha & Council declaratory judg- 283, County, Terminal school adverse unaided school Wisconsin, lines arose Eq. long acquies- 114 Neb. 70 L.Ed. Aluminum boundary between v. Landlords' similar districts rightful 285 later, 68, over supplied.) boundary described has refer- 901, Until the districts, (quoting between the sub- 239 Or. because 106 Fla. districts posses- (1929). Louis- public Co. v. in the 168 king's or be prin- for it, 483, nei- 903 be- au- A. v. 18. 17. 19. Loris v. v. beyond possession under although occupants boundary it ry common the line. Leach v. prescription upon hereditament in reached sion would see real verse, actual, open, must show that adversely continuous and for title Holdsworth, dy If exclusive, against 1233, 140 —the Collins, Stolfa, supra note To establish title For the In The occupancy required supra Okl. right to the adverse claimant. recognized misapprehension, as to the true location of established 1237-38; Hammer v. true Patrick, land’s 292, law). note 5. King line is for (as pertinent 1989 deprive the true far is at title. period supra 283 P. claimed must have been History Of English Common distinguished 498. continuous, recovery back as land). 1966 OK 414 P.2d possession OK founding actual, Breaux, required common law but a It does premises beyond West, note which confer title one who has the visible, notorious, exclusive, Title 563, by prescription, a terms of 12 O.S.1991 115, statutory period. September open, by 568 have been 283 P. at 567-570 29 Selden so 79, time of provisions an immemorial user memory it period, from title acquired ejectment. Bell, (1930). operate may visible, notorious, Stolfa only occupied human 162, be "adverse" land Society, 3, 1189, abrogate unaware, 1352, 1354; of man. incorporeal is one’s of 60 O.S. to transfer v. 249, claimant was Adverse Law enjoyed Gaines, Shanks defense memo- corpo- reme- § 252. land true (the ad- 57, *10 814 continuously allowing presumption a as a

custom arose of area school district — grant usage proof long on for a term of interruption of sans a manner that has —in years.22 span acquisition (visible), a adverse, The time for of open been notorious prescriptive governed by title is Oklahoma exclusive, integrity longer its territorial is no 338, § of 60 O.S.1991 statute.23 The terms pres- dispute assailable. Because the instant upon which confer title one has who public-law controversy, may this ents adversely pe occupied requisite land for the change theory parties tendered riod, abrogate the common law.24 prius by the court.27 nisi and followed trial functioning 10 The has District been sum, although join affirming I qua within the annexed school dis- judgment, today’s trial I from court’s recede (visi- years. open trict for over fifteen Its opinion. pronounce- I would rest this court’s adverse, ble), notorious, exclusive and con- solely prescription the operation ment on of “occupancy”25 tinuous land annexed in- inappropriateness rather than on requisite period upon area for the confers it declaratory-judgment remedy. voked by prescription title to the administrative places I vice find in the is that court’s text it integrity territory sought to be de- legislatively a needless and unwarranted28 plaintiffs’ annexed lawsuit.26 if Even availability judicial on dec- restriction acquired through District’s title was testing for laration school-district boundaries elections, it flawed annexation has become by facially void drawn means. impervious challenge by lapse of time.

Ill

SUMMARY

¶ 11 Inasmuch as the District has been

occupying years for over fifteen the annexed Opala, supra Harvey, supra date of Richard I's coronation. 26. note 15 at 151. note 8 at 125. resolving public-law controversy, When 27. reviewing generally grant court is free correc- Co., 359, Ry. 22. Scallon v. Manhattan 185 N.Y. any applicable legal theory dispos- tive relief 363, 284, (1906). 78 N.E. 285 supported by itive the case the record. Com'rs, 80, County Russell v. Board OK 1997 23. bringing As notion fixed time 492, 497; P.2d 952 Jackson v. Oklahoma Memo- law, action was unknown the common 112, 765, 768; Hosp., rial OK 909 P.2d power extinguish remedy by lapse years County Side North State Bank v. Board Com'rs regarded exclusively legislative. v. Lake 34, 1046, County, Tulsa 1994 OK 894 P.2d 45, 935, Lietch, only 1976 OK 937. 550 P.2d 8; Co., n. Schulte Oil v. Inc. Oklahoma Tax developed by limitation of time law common Com'n, 103, 65, 8; 1994 OK P.2d 69 n. (sans aid) was its so-called "immemori Com'n, 122, Strelecki v. Oklahoma Tax 1993 OK prescription." century al Not until the 17th did 910, 66; Dixon, Simpson 872 P.2d 920 n. v. begin passing legislation prescribing Parliament 71, 176, 55; McNeely, OK 853 P.2d 187 n. Matter fixed time limits within which an action must be 1294, 1296; of, Reynolds 1987 OK 734 P.2d brought prevent remedy’s in order to extin- Fund, Special v. Indem. 1986 OK Independent Greer, guishment. Corp. See Resolution Trust v. 1265, 1270; Burdick v. Sch. Dist. 26; Opala, P.2d 1995 OK 263 n. County, 52No. 1985 OK 111-113, supra note at 124. Lawton, P.2d 54 n. McCracken 11; Application 21 n. (when Stolfa, Goodwin, supra 762, 764; note 16 at 567-70 the bar complete, Indemnity pre- Special Reynolds, of the statute a title becomes Fund v. 199 Old. scription arises oc- in the adverse holder whose adverse, actual, cupancy visible and continu- ous, regardless occupancy by judicial legal of how destitute that 28. Relief declaration of status title). any been creature. have color of See the terms of 12 O.S. pertinent provisions 1991 1651. The of 1651 are: occupancy In this sense means exercise governmental may, control within an affected land "District courts in cases of actual contro- status, subject versy, rights, area all legal over institutions the District’s determine or other management. mine.) (Emphasis official relations....’’