Oklahoma MRTA? Purchased home 32 years later

I need some help with a very big issue in my country housing area.....

My review of the law indicates that the covenant's expire after 30 years, just like Florida, whether a continuation is written into the CC&R or not.

The establisher, Kinkead Jr signed the documents into public record in 1985 for my home in Kinkead Hills.

This would mean that they expired in 2015 without him resigning a notarized document.

We purchased in 2017, 2 years after the opportunity to renew the covenants expired.

For some reason.....The abstract office might be confused, Kinkead hills is made up of 3 or 4 subdivisions ranger from 1985 up until 2001, each having Kinkead Jr filing separate CC&R for those builders. They still believe the CC&R are in effect.

Oklahoma upholds MTRA/Real Property Act rulings. Without an HOA established nothing is established for renewal of CC&Rs.

My question is, do they have any legal ground to stop my contractor from building my fence that is within code for the city?

My deed didn't indicate CC&R or the wording involved.

I was given the CC&R just yesterday, and the confrontation is that my fence is questionable to within placement on the "rearward" portion of my house.

My next door neighbor hates fences, but I have 3 dogs and 4 acres of property, Mostly mountain side.

I'm fencing the only reasonable space I have in compliance with materials and area by the city ordinances.

When I discovered the 1985 signed document, I already told him he might want to look into MRTA before getting an attorney, but he has a lot more lucrative income, and is the rich neighborhood bully.

I just want people to leave my dwelling alone, especially after purchasing 32 years later.

The CC&Rs have not been renewed in writing since 1985, and the actual founder died in 2017, that established the original document.

The Oklahoma Cattle and Land LLC took over the inheritance.

OK’s version of MRTA doesn’t seem as clear, to me, as Florida’s.

Are CCRs extinguished in the same manner, based, apparently on root of deed?

Christopher, can you help with excerpts from your CCRs?

It establishes the same 30 year criteria as Florida here is a link.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://eppersonlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/294-MRTA-and-Cotenancy-draft14-05-29-16-revised-and-re-submitted-to-OBJ.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjjsN7Q5_fmAhWPGs0KHcBkAtwQFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2r6MQANUDN9DWoVXFtwXYk

The link provided by Chris is an explanation of the law from an attorney.

Here is a link to the actual law: 16 O.S. §§ 71–80. Note: this is a word document for all of title 16.
Therefore, here is what chapters 71-80 have:

§16-71. Marketable record title defined.
Any person having the legal capacity to own land in this state, who has an unbroken chain of title of record to any interest in land for thirty (30) years or more, shall be deemed to have a marketable record title to such interest as defined in Section 78 of this title, subject only to the matters stated in Section 72 of this title. A person shall be deemed to have such an unbroken chain of title when the official public records disclose a conveyance or other title transaction, of record not less than thirty (30) years at the time the marketability is to be determined, which said conveyance or other title transaction purports to create such interest, either in
(a) the person claiming such interest, or
(b) some other person from whom, by one or more conveyances or other title transactions of record, such purported interest has become vested in the person claiming such interest; with nothing appearing of record, in either case, purporting to divest such claimant of such purported interest.
Laws 1963, c. 31, § 1; Laws 1970, c. 92, § 1, eff. July 1, 1972.

§16-72. Title subject to certain interests and defects.
Such marketable record title shall be subject to:
(a) All interests and defects which are inherent in the muniments of which such chain of record title is formed; provided, however, that a general reference in such muniments, or any of them, to interests created prior to the root of title shall not be sufficient to preserve them, unless specific identification be made therein of a recorded title transaction which creates such interest.
(b) All interests preserved by the filing of proper notice or by possession by the same owner continuously for a period of thirty (30) years or more, in accordance with Section 74 of this title.
(c) The rights of any person arising from a period of adverse possession or user, which was in whole or in part subsequent to the effective date of the root of title.
(d) Any interest relating to a title transaction which has been recorded subsequent to the effective date of the root of title from which the unbroken chain of title of record is started; provided, however, that such recording shall not revive or give validity to any interest which has been extinguished prior to the time of the recording by the operation of Section 73 of this title.
(e) The exceptions stated in Section 76 of this title as to rights of reversioners in leases, as to severed mineral or royalty interests, as to easements and interests in the nature of easements, and rights granted, reserved or excepted by instruments creating such easements or interests, or restrictions or agreements which are part of a subdivision development plan, and as to interests of the United States.
Added by Laws 1963, c. 31, § 2. Amended by Laws 1970, c. 92, § 2, eff. July 1, 1972.

§16-73. Claims prior to date of root title as null and void.
Subject to matters stated in Section 2 hereof, such marketable record title shall be held by its owner and shall be taken by any person dealing with the land free and clear of all interests, claims or charges whatsoever, the existence of which depends upon any act, transaction, event or omission that occurred prior to the effective date of the root of title. All such interests, claims or charges, however denominated, whether legal or equitable, present or future, whether such interests, claims or charges are asserted by a person sui juris or under a disability, whether such person is within or without the state, whether such person is natural or corporate, or is private or governmental, are hereby declared to be null and void.
Added by Laws 1963, c. 31, § 3.

§16-74. Filing of notice of claim - Disability or lack of knowledge - Thirty-year possession as deemed equivalent to filing notice.
(a) Any person claiming an interest in land may preserve and keep effective such interest by filing for record during the thirty-year period immediately following the effective date of the root of title of the person whose record title would otherwise be marketable, a notice in writing, duly verified by oath, setting forth the nature of the claim. No disability or lack of knowledge of any kind on the part of anyone shall suspend the running of said thirty-year period. Such notice may be filed for record by the claimant or by any other person acting on behalf of any claimant who is
(1) under a disability,
(2) unable to assert a claim on his own behalf, or
(3) one of a class, but whose identity cannot be established or is uncertain at the time of filing such notice of claim for record.
(b) If the same record owner of any possessory interest in land has been in possession of such land continuously for a period of thirty (30) years or more, during which period no title transaction with respect to such interest appears of record in his chain of title, and no notice has been filed by him or on his behalf as provided in subsection (a), and such possession continues to the time when marketability is being determined, such period of possession shall be deemed equivalent to the filing of the notice immediately preceding the termination of the thirty-year period described in subsection (a).
Added by Laws 1963, c. 31, § 4. Amended by Laws 1970, c. 92, § 3, eff. July 1, 1972.

§16-75. Contents and recording of notice - Sham legal process.
A. To be effective and to be entitled to be recorded, the notice of claim of interest in land, referred to in Section 74 of this title, shall contain an accurate and full description of all land affected by such notice which description shall be set forth in particular terms and not by general inclusions; but if said claim is founded upon a recorded instrument, then the description in such notice may be the same as that contained in such recorded instrument. Such notice shall be filed for record in the county clerk's office of the county or counties where the land described therein is situated. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, the county clerk of each county shall accept all such notices presented to him which describe land located in the county in which he serves and shall enter, record and index the same in the same way that deeds are recorded and each county clerk shall be entitled to charge the same fees for the recording thereof as are charged for recording deeds. In indexing such notices in his office, each county clerk shall enter such notices in the index of deeds and in the numerical index. The names of the claimants appearing in such notices are to be entered as grantees in such indexes.
B. The county clerk may refuse to file any notice of interest in land provided for in subsection A of this section, if the clerk believes that the instrument constitutes sham legal process, as defined by Section 1533 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, or if the clerk believes the notice is being presented for the purpose of slandering the title to land.
C. 1. Any person aggrieved by the refusal of a county clerk to file any notice provided for in subsection A of this section may petition the district court for a writ of mandamus to compel the county clerk to record the notice.
2. At the time of refusal, the person aggrieved shall file a notice of refusal with the county clerk for the purpose of preserving priority of filing in the event the person prevails in any action so commenced, if the person wishes to preserve priority of filing. The refusal notice shall be submitted on a form provided by the county clerk, but must be filled out by the aggrieved party. A copy of the instrument that the clerk refused to file must be attached to the notice of refusal. The county clerk shall stamp the date of refusal on the notice of refusal.
3. The refusal notice shall be in the following form:
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
__________ COUNTY
NOTICE OF REFUSAL
The Office of County Clerk of __________ County, Oklahoma, has on __________ (date) refused to file a document designated ___________ (title of document or brief description of document). The document constitutes a claim or lien on the following property: ______________ _______________________________________________ (Description of property. In case of real property, description must be the legal description for the property.) A copy of the refused document must be attached to this notice of refusal or the clerk cannot accept it for filing.
Signed:_____________ Signed: ________________________
County Clerk Aggrieved party or attorney
for aggrieved party
_______County, Oklahoma
Address:__________________
__________________________
4. The action for mandamus must be filed with the district court within twenty (20) days after the notice of refusal is filed with the county clerk. If the writ of mandamus is granted, the court clerk shall refund the fee for filing the action. Notice of the pendency of a mandamus action filed pursuant to this section shall be filed in accordance with Section 2004.2 of Title 12 of the Oklahoma Statutes. A file-stamped copy of the notice of the pendency of the action, identifying the case and the court in which the action is pending and the legal description of the land affected by the action shall be filed with the county clerk. If the court determines that the notice provided for in subsection A of this section is not sham legal process or is not for the purpose of slandering title, the court shall order the county clerk to record the notice. The court order shall include a notation of the book and page number of the index in which the notice of refusal is located and a statement that abstractors shall not show the pages on which the attachment to the notice of refusal is located in any abstract. For any notice which the court orders to be filed pursuant to this subsection, the date of filing shall be retroactive to the date the notice of refusal was filed.
5. If the court determines that the notice of claim of interest in land is sham legal process, the court shall issue an order that abstractors shall not show the pages on which the attachment to the notice of refusal is located in any abstract.
D. If a county clerk files a notice of interest in land that is sham legal process or refuses to file a notice of interest in land because the clerk believes the notice to be sham legal process, the clerk shall be immune from liability for such action in any civil suit.
E. A clerk shall post a sign, in letters at least one (1) inch in height, that is clearly visible to the general public in or near the clerk's office stating that it is a felony to intentionally or knowingly file or attempt to file sham legal process with the clerk. Failure of the clerk to post such a sign shall not create a defense to any criminal or civil action based on sham legal process.
Added by Laws 1963, c. 31, § 5. Amended by Laws 1997, c. 405, § 6, emerg. eff. June 13, 1997.

§16-76. Exceptions to application of act - Stray instruments - Root of title - Severed mineral interests.
A. Sections 71 through 80 of this title shall not be applied to bar any lessor or his successor as a reversioner of his right to possession on the expiration of any lease; or to bar or extinguish any mineral or royalty interest which has been severed from the fee simple title of the land; or to bar or extinguish any easement or interest in the nature of an easement, or any rights granted, reserved or excepted by any instrument creating such easement or interest; or use restrictions or area agreements which are part of a plan for subdivision development or to bar any right, title or interest of the United States by reason of failure to file the notice herein required.
B. As used in this section, "stray instrument" means an instrument executed by a person or entity, or a decree of distribution entered in the estate of a decedent, who or which does not otherwise appear in the chain of record title to a tract of real property. A stray instrument shall not create a root of title pursuant to Sections 71 through 80 of this title if the following conditions exist:
1. There is apparent from the record an otherwise valid, uninterrupted chain of record title traceable to an instrument which is a root of title as defined by Sections 71 through 80 of this title; and
2. A current owner of the property under the chain of title referred to in paragraph 1 of this subsection records an affidavit that alleges that the current owner or owners are in possession of the property and that the parties claiming under the stray instrument own no interest in the property. If there are multiple owners, any one or more of the owners may execute the affidavit on behalf of all owners.
C. An instrument executed by a person or entity, or a decree of distribution entered in the estate of a decedent who or which does not otherwise appear in the chain of record title to a tract of real property, except as an owner of a severed mineral interest therein, shall not create a root of title pursuant to Sections 71 through 80 of this title.
D. As used in this section "severed mineral interest" includes mineral leasehold interests or working interests, mineral royalty interests and overriding royalty interests, and ownership of minerals without any ownership interest in the surface estate other than the rights of ingress and egress and for use of the surface for mineral development and exploration.
E. This section shall not apply to the interest of any person or entity who or which claims a valid interest under any such stray instrument as defined herein and who shall, no later than November 1, 1996, file with the county clerk of the county where the land or interest is located, a notice of such claim, setting forth the basis thereof, and specifically referring to this section.
Added by Laws 1963, c. 31, § 6. Amended by Laws 1995, c. 232, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 1995.

§16-77. Operation of statutes of limitations or recording statutes unaffected.
Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to extend the period for the bringing of an action or for the doing of any other required act under any statutes of limitations, nor, except as herein specifically provided, to affect the operation of any statutes governing the effect of the recording or the failure to record any instrument affecting land.
Laws 1963, c. 31, § 7.

§16-78. Definitions.
(a) "Marketable record title" means a title of record as indicated in Section 71 of this title, which operates to extinguish such interests and claims, existing prior to the effective date of the root of title, as are stated in Section 73 of this title.
(b) "Records" includes probate and other official public records, as well as records in the county clerk's office.
(c) "Recording," when applied to the official public records of any office or court, includes filing.
(d) "Person dealing with land" includes a purchaser of any estate or interest therein, a mortgagee, a levying or attaching creditor, a land contract vendee, or any other person seeking to acquire an estate or interest therein, or impose a lien thereon.
(e) "Root of title" means that conveyance or other title transaction in the chain of title of a person, purporting to create the interest claimed by such person, upon which he relies as a basis for the marketability of his title, and which was the most recent to be recorded as of a date thirty (30) years prior to the time when marketability is being determined. The effective date of the "root of title" is the date on which it is recorded.
(f) "Title transaction" means any transaction affecting title to any interest in land, including title by will or descent, title by tax deed, mineral deed, lease or reservation, or by trustee's, referee's, guardian's, executor's, administrator's, master in chancery's, sheriff's or marshal's deed, or decree of any court, as well as warranty deed, quitclaim deed, or mortgage.
Laws 1963, c. 31, § 8; Laws 1970, c. 92, § 4, eff. July 1, 1972.

§16-79. Penalties for filing slanderous notices of claims - Quiet title action independent of criminal action.
A. No person shall use the privilege of filing notices hereunder for the purpose of slandering the title to land and, in any action brought for the purpose of quieting title to land, if the court shall find that any person has filed a claim for that reason, he shall award the plaintiff all the costs of such action, including such attorney fees as the court may allow to the plaintiff, and, in addition, shall decree that the defendant asserting such claim shall pay to plaintiff three times the damages that plaintiff may have sustained as the result of such notice of claim having been so filed for record.
B. A quiet title action shall be independent of any criminal action that may be filed against the defendant, and there shall be no requirement that the defendant in a quiet title action be convicted of any criminal act.
Added by Laws 1963, c. 31, § 9. Amended by Laws 1997, c. 405, § 7, emerg. eff. June 13, 1997.

§16-80. Construction.
This act shall be liberally construed to effect the legislative purpose of simplifying and facilitating land title transactions by allowing persons to rely on a record chain of title as described in Section 1 of this act, subject only to such limitations as appear in Section 2 of this act.
Laws 1963, c. 31, § 10.

I'm going to discuss what I know with my realtors recommended attorney. It sounds like this whole neighborhood is living under false pretenses, in accordance to what I'm reading. We have a much easier time tracking root here in Oklahoma due to abstracts that we pay a hefty amount for at closing. Everything in city and public record exceeds 30 years from the root establishment with no breaks in transfer or renewal.

MRTA doesn't care that it has that continuation statement.

It was adopted to prevent that sort of thing from occurring.

We have abstracts that get issued to us. My abstract is in good standing order for over 30 years, and has the original signed CC&R date of April 9, 1985 as the root.

The establish CC&R was never renewed and in accordance with MRTA (Marketable Records Title Act), those CC&R should be voided.

MRTA is like a giant eraser of public record that sit stagnate for too long.

We have never had an HOA, so nobody kept up with any of this. Oklahoma, especially small towns, are not up to speed with legal writings also.

Not every state has MRTA/Real Property laws.

Luckily Oklahoma is one of them.

Post-o. The relevant section from Florida's MRTA appears to be:
"712.04 Interests extinguished by marketable record
title.-Subject to the matters stated in s. 712.03, such
marketable record title shall be free and clear of all
estates, interests, claims, or charges whatsoever, the
existence of which depends upon any act, title
transaction, event or omission that occurred prior to the
effective date of the root of title. All such estates,
interests, claims, or charges, however denominated,
whether such estates, interests, claims, or charges are
or appear to be held or asserted by a person sui juris or
under a disability, whether such person is within or
without the state, whether such person is natural or
corporate, or is private or governmental are hereby
declared to be null and void, except that this chapter
shall not be deemed to affect any right, title, or
interest of the United States, Florida, or any of its
officers, boards, commissions, or other agencies reserved
in the patent or deed by which the United States,
Florida, or any of its agencies parted with title."

I think it takes more than just being 30+ years old. Attorneys on a number of web sites say that, 'root of title' is about determining whether any deed older than 30 years refers explicitly to certain covenants. If such 30+ year old deeds do refer specifically to these covenants, then the covenants continue. For example, see --

-- https://www.sweeneylawpa.com/understanding-floridas-marketable-record-title-act/ (quoted above)

-- https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/do-hoa-covenants-expire-after-the-30-year-time-fra-1212801.html: "You have to look back 30 years or more. Start with your deed and work your way back until you come to the a deed that is at least 30 years old. If none of the deeds contain this information your covenants have probably expired against your property."

-- From a Florida Supreme Court decision https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/1993/79981-0.html: "Thus, a thirty-one-year-old restriction is preserved if the root of title or a subsequent muniment contains a "specific identification" to a recorded title transaction that imposed, transferred, or continued the restriction. Id. The "specific identification" to the title transaction can be made in one of two ways: (1) by reference to the book and page in the public records where the title transaction that imposed the restriction can be found, or (2) by reference to the name of a recorded plat that imposed the restriction. Id."

Maybe I am misunderstanding. But so far, I do not see any clear corroboration for the OP's claim that all that is necessary is for the CC&Rs to be extinguished is for them to be over 30 years old.

A LOT of effort to change the standards of a neighborhood.

I have zip sympathy for someone wanting to do this, mainly because it means they really simply want to do what they want to do.

I feel pretty certain the OP is not going to be helpful in a neighborly sense - unless he gets "his way."

The discussion and focus on MRTA is simply a method to try and get "his way."

Think how cool if the OP bought and tried to improve the neighborhood - instead ...

I pulled the original deed and property warrant for the land, first house built there was in 1993 after the covenants were signed in 1985. Deed doesn't even indicate book or folio/page #, for the covenants that were signed in 1985.

This is why I want to question the attorney.

Essentially the only mark in public record is the original filed CC&R from 1985, which the county clerk has.

Also none of the Deeds on the web list any of the CC&R on them. I checked several of the neighbors, and their deeds, they are maintained online for public view.

I think the CC&R were restricting the builders more than it was the buyer of the property.

I agree. He is also playing lawyer.

I have seen plats that reference the CC&Rs with specificity (e.g. recording date and item number in the County Clerk records). I would not rule out that this might make MRTA not applicable. From https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-marketable-record-title-act-made-easy/:
"Consequently, title matters shown on the face of plats are seldom eliminated by MRTA because they are continuously reimposed by specific reference to the plat in each subsequent deed or conveyance. References characterized by the words “subject to” with a citation to the book and page of the document creating the rights will reimpose those rights on the land. One result of this exception is to allow reimposition of matters for one lot in a subdivision when those restrictions have generally expired for most all of the lots in the neighborhood due to a reference made in the postroot chain of title for that lot."

From https://stagelaw.com/the-marketable-record-title-act-mrta/ :
"The hard part for most non-lawyers to understand is covenants can expire against just one lot, but not all the lots. It’s not as simple as saying the covenants are 30 years old and because no Notice of Preservation was filed, they cease to exist. Covenants can be preserved in a number of ways, including a reference on a recorded plat by the Official Records Book and Page. Covenants recorded on a plat in such a way do not expire which is why I used the word usually' with caution."

Beg pardon. The Oklahoma legislature and governor enacted the statute in question in the 1960s. Suppose the OP confirms that the MRTA applies to his lot. Pursuant to the MRTA and with the help of a real estate attorney, suppose the OP finds that his lot is lawfully exempted from the CC&Rs. The HOA (if there is one) likely had a chance to revitalize the covenants and did not. I think the MRTA is not some kind of legal loophole. Instead what seems to be apparent is that the HOA (if it exists) was careless. George, your wanting to throw out a well known statute that has been around for fifty years seems to me to be you wanting it your way.

Thank you, and in the history of 35 years, the subdivision has never had an HOA. I don't blame my neighbors for not knowing this information, unless your look at laws all day, most people do not cross this law in Oklahoma. Unfortunately I research case laws for my employer, but I'm not a real-estate lawyer, I can only utilize what I know from Grad School and translate the best I can. This is why the attorney is eager to get this information, because this neighborhood would be a profit for them if my findings are correct.

The plats do not address the CC&R in them, they just outline the Plats to the City and their boundaries.

The county does have record of the CC&R signed back in 1985, but they still needed to be listed in the deeds within 30 years. The first warranty deed was drafted in 1993, with only the plats referenced, no CC&R, then in 2009 another buyer bought, with the same verbiage as the original 1993 deed, no CC&R listed, then we bought in 2017....32 years later, with no CC&R tide to the deed or mentioning.

So a owner created CC&R for the land, never transferred them to developer, who wrote the first deed, then for 30 years no mentioning of them were recorded to the property.

Like the scenario here described below.

I have a subscription to our county records to review documents that are held on file. I also have a copy of it in my abstract at home. The abstracts here contain every record dating back well beyond the CC&Rs.

I'm also responding from a phone, and not really paying much attention to how the spelling was prior.

But to reiterate the plat lists nothing about the CC&R at all.

My records and the county records show a CC&R made in 1985 over the subdivision, then a record for the plats was filed, then the developers began buying building and selling the lots as they were developed, the deeds from the developers contained only terminology relating to the plats on record with the county, and every record there after mirrored the same.

Good questions. There's a similar situation with my HOA that I've never been able to figure out. My HOA was incorporated in the final week of 1988. The original CC&Rs were recorded with the county at the end of March 1989. On the first page is written:

"... both said common areas and residences being shown on the plat of XYZ which is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof."

The Plat of XYZ was not approved by the county board of commissioners until April 25, 1989.

So the CC&Rs include by reference a Plat that had not yet been approved by or recorded with the county. The dates look "wrong", but there they are.

An advantage to the order in which things were filed is that the Book & Page numbers in the county's Official Records where the CC&Rs are recorded were known when the Plat was recorded a month later, and therefore the face of the Plat itself contains a direct reference to Book and Page of the county's Official Records where the CC&Rs may be found. According to the Florida Statutes, that means MRTA will never expire our CC&Rs because anything written on a Plat is treated as if it were written verbatim into a Deed that refers to that Plat and the lots specified in it. FS 712.03(1) (Florida's MRTA) will not extinguish CC&Rs where, "... specific identification by reference to book and page of record or by name of recorded plat be made therein to a recorded title transaction which imposed, transferred or continued such ... use restrictions ...;"

Of course, that didn't stop the HOA attorney some years back from selling the HOA a MRTA "Notice of Preservation" package for thousands of dollars. Completely not needed in our case, but what can you do when your own attorney doesn't understand MRTA?

MRTA in Florida is not well-understood by most attorneys. I'll bet it's the same in Oklahoma.