THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 36 | OCTOBER 2025 Real Property A Contract for Deed Transfers Equitable Title to the Buyer (16 O.S. §11A) By Kraettli Q. Epperson A HOLDING IN THE RECENT Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals decision in Butterfield v. Trustee of McCoy Revocable Trust concerns a contract for deed: “In Oklahoma, a contract to convey at a future time – once the purchaser performs certain acts – does not transfer any title until the purchaser performs all acts necessary to entitle him to a deed.”1 As explained in this article, such holding appears to be contrary to applicable Oklahoma statutes and case law. Mr. Butterfield held a contract for deed as the buyer from Ms. Carter, the seller, and was in possession of the real property. This contract was not recorded until after Ms. Carter conveyed the same real property to a third party, the McCoy Revocable Living Trust, by warranty deed and until after such McCoy deed was recorded. After the deed to the McCoy Trust was recorded, Ms. Carter gave Mr. Butterfield a warranty deed because he had completed all required payments. This deed to Mr.Butterfield was not recorded. The McCoy Trust sued Mr. Butterfield to quiet title. The McCoy Trust claimed that it did not have any notice of Mr. Butterfield’s claim, other than Mr. Butterfield’s possession. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the McCoy Trust, finding that the McCoy Trust was “a bona fide purchaser for value”2 because 1) Mr. Butterfield “had not yet performed all obligations under the contract at the time the McCoy Trust obtained its interest through filing its deed of record,” but more significantly, 2) Mr. Butterfield “had no equitable or legal interest in the property [under the contract for deed].”3 Such position was then cited and followed in a later unreported Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals decision, Long v. Ly.4 Ms. Ly’s LLC conveyed the subject real property to Mr. Towner. This deed was apparently recorded. Mr. Towner (as the seller) and Ms. Ly (individually, as the buyer) executed and delivered a contract for deed, which was not recorded, but Ms. Ly continued in possession. The Longs (plaintiffs) took a deed to the real property from Mr. Towner; although, at that time, Ms. Ly was still in possession. The Longs assumed Ms. Ly was only a renter, but they apparently did not contact and question her. The Longs sued to quiet title against Ms. Ly as a bona fide purchaser and asserted, “There was an absence of notice, actual or constructive, of outstanding rights of others.”5 The trial court granted the Longs’ motion for summary judgment. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment, relying on the earlier holding in Butterfield by repeating its holding: “In Oklahoma, a contract to convey at a future time – once the purchaser performs certain acts – does not transfer any title until the purchaser performs all acts necessary to entitle him to a deed.”6 Butterfield and Long are collectively referred to herein as the “Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions.” Such Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions may have been correct when they stated that a contract for deed fails to convey “legal” title (as opposed to “equitable” title) until all promised payments are made.7 However, a contract for deed, defined under Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==