Title: CALVERT v. SWINFORD
Citation: 2016 OK 105
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: October 11, 2016

CALVERT v. SWINFORD Annotate this Case CALVERT v. SWINFORD 2016 OK 105 Case Number: 115165 Decided: 10/11/2016 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. LISA D. CALVERT and TERESA ROPER, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. WAYLAND GUY SWINFORD AND DAWN ELYNN SWINFORD, Defendants/Appellees, and NOCONA L. CARTER, AND BRIAN L. CARTER, ROGER D. WARDEN AND SUSAN WARDEN, BRANDON VAUGHN AND SERRA VAUGHN, FIRST NATIONAL BANK, JEREMY D. WOODS, CHRISTY S. WOODS, BLACK BEAR CREEK ENERGY COMPANY, LLC., ROUTE 66 MINERALS, L.P., SUNDOWN ENERGY, L.P. AND HIGHMOUNT EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, LLC., Defendants/Appellees. and LISA D. CALVERT and TERESA ROPER, Plaintiff, v. MKB Royalty Corporation, Randee Koger, and Bremyer & Wise, LLC., Defendants, and RANDEE KOGER, and WISE & REBER, LLC., Defendants. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF NOBLE COUNTY Honorable Phillip A. Ross, Trial Judge ¶0 The plaintiffs/appellants, sisters, sold real property in Noble County, but allegedly intended to keep their mineral interests in the property. Some twelve years after the deeds were filed, the sisters realized that mineral interests were not reserved and they filed a lawsuit against the defendants/appellees, grantee/landowners. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the lawsuit was untimely, and the trial court agreed and granted summary judgment. We retained the appeal in No. 114,957, Calvert v. Swinford, 2016 OK 100, __ P.3d __, which concerned the defendant, abstract company, and No. 115,015, Calvert v. Swinford, 2016 OK 104, ___ P.3d ___, which concerned the lawyer who handled the transaction and his law firm. We retained this cause, concerning the grantee/landowners, to also address the issue of whether constructive notice imposed upon the grantors by the filing of a deed with the county clerk precludes this action as well. We hold it does pursuant to our decisions and the teachings of No. 114,957, Calvert v. Swinford, 2016 OK 100, __ P.3d _, and No. 115,015, Calvert v. Swinford, 2016 OK 104,_ P.3d _. MOTION TO RETAIN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED. David R. Cordell, Hayley N. Stephens, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs/Appellants. Trace Morgan, Jonathan Udoka, Stillwater, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. KAUGER, J.: ¶1 We retained this cause to address the dispositive issue of whether constructive notice imposed upon the grantors by the filing of a deed with the county clerk precludes this action as well. We hold it does pursuant to our decisions and the teachings of No. 114,957, Calvert v. Swinford, 2016 OK 100, __ P.3d ___, and No. 115,015, Calvert v. Swinford, 2016 OK 104, ___ P.3d ___. FACTS ¶2 The facts of this cause are essentially the same as our recent decision in 114,957, Calvert v. Swinford, 2016 OK 100, __ P.3d ___. However, this cause concerns the summary judgment granted in favor of the defendants/appellees, grantee/landowners, Wayland and Dawn Swinford. Because this action was brought against the grantees, the grantors sought quiet title to the property, rescission, breach of contract, fraud and unjust enrichment. ¶3 On May 21, 2003, the Swinfords filed a quiet title action to the property in Noble County No. CV-2003-10, which resulted in a default judgment in their favor.1 Subsequently, according to the grantors, beginning in June of 2003, the Swinfords began conveying portions of the property to third parties: June 5, 2003 (ten acres); June 27, and July 11, 2003 (certain property rights); January 13, 2006 (convey a parcel), and that some of these third parties also later conveyed their interest in the property to others in 2011. The grantees also entered into mineral lease in March of 2010, and purported to convey a portion of the mineral interests in 2011. ¶4 As a result of the above transactions, the grantors filed a lawsuit against the grantees on September 30, 2013, some twelve years after the deeds were filed. The grantors alleged: 1) they are entitled to quiet title in the mineral interests; 2) the contracts for the land sales executed in October of 2000 and January of 2001 should be rescinded; 3) the grantee breached the contracts by exercising dominion and control over the underlying minerals; 4) the grantees have defrauded the grantors by purporting to convey and/or lease all or portions of the underlying minerals to the property from time to time over the years;2 and 5) the grantees have been unjustly enriched as a result of the sale. ¶5 On January 12, 2016, the grantees filed a motion for summary judgment raising the same arguments raised in No. 114,957, Calvert v. Swinford, 2016 OK 100, __ P.3d ___ and No. 115,015, Calvert v. Swinford, 2016 OK 104, ___ P.3d ___, that the statute of limitations barred the lawsuit. On May 6, 2016, the court filed an order granting summary judgment to the grantees determining that the deeds previously described in No, 114,957, gave the grantors constructive notice of any alleged mistake when they were filed of public record. Consequently, all of the grantors' claims were barred by the statute of limitations.3 The trial court also directed the filing of a final journal entry of judgment pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 994(a).4 ¶6 On July 16, 2016, the grantors appealed, arguing that summary judgment was premature because fact questions exist as to whether the statute of limitations had run. On appeal, the grantees raise the same arguments which were raised in No. 114,597. We retained this cause on July 14, 2016, to address the same statute of limitations issue. We hold that this cause is governed by our recent holdings in No. 114,957, Calvert v. Swinford, 2016 OK 100, ___ P.3d ___ and No. 115,015, Calvert v. Swinford, 2016 OK 104, __ P.3d __ and their teachings are dispositive. The grantors claims are barred by the statute of limitations because their actions began to accrue when the deed, which allegedly neglected to reserve mineral interests, was filed with the county clerk. MOTION TO RETAIN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED. KAUGER, WATT, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, TAYLOR, COLBERT, GURICH, JJ., concur. COMBS, V.C.J., not participating. REIF, C.J., not voting. FOOT