OCTOBER 2025 | 39 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL In the Hartless case, the seller signed the contract for deed, but the buyer did not. That court concluded: In contrast, Hartless [the buyer] reasoned that the Contract comprises two agreements – a contract for sale of property and a mortgage agreement. While Hartless [the buyer] concedes the written mortgage on the property would not be valid because she did not sign it, she contends that the contract for sale of property by contract for deed is valid because Cline, as the grantor or seller signed it. She then contends that a mortgage arises therefrom by operation of law under 16 O.S.2021, §11A. Hartless’ [the buyer’s] argument is more persuasive. Though section 11A establishes a constructive mortgage in the case of a contract for deed and requires it to be treated so, it does not require that the contract for deed contain language pertaining to or granting a mortgage, which must in turn be executed to be enforceable. Cline cites no Oklahoma Supreme Court authority holding that [16 O.S.] section 4 applies to a contract for deed in the manner suggested, i.e., to negate a contract for sale of the property because the purchaser who will be deemed to have granted the constructive mortgage through that agreement has not executed it.15 In conclusion, the holding of Butterfield and its progeny, Long, that a buyer under a contract for deed has no interest either legal or equitable in the subject real property appears to be an erroneous statement of the law in Oklahoma. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Kraettli Q. Epperson is of counsel with Nash, Cohenour & Giessmann PC in Oklahoma City. He received his J.D. from the OCU School of Law in 1978 and focuses on mineral and surface title litigation and expert representation. Mr. Epperson chaired the OBA Title Examination Standards Committee from 1988 to 2020 and taught “Oklahoma Land Titles” at the OCU School of Law from 1982 to 2018. He edits and co-authors West/Epperson: Oklahoma Real Estate Forms. ENDNOTES 1. Butterfield v. Trustee of McCoy Revocable Trust, 2024 OK CIV APP 2, ¶22, 542 P.3d 877, 881. 2. Id. ¶27. 3. Id. ¶24. 4. Long v. Ly, Case No. 122,277, March 13, 2025. 5. Id. ¶8. 6. Id. ¶22. 7. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Second Pocket Edition: 1) Legal title – A title that evidences apparent ownership but does not necessarily signify full and complete title or a beneficial interest. Cf. equitable title. 2) Equitable title – A title that indicates a beneficial interest in property and that gives the holder the right to acquire formal legal title. Cf. legal title. For a discussion of “equitable title,” see Faust Corporation v. Harris, 2020 OK CIV APP 20, ¶¶33-34, 467 P.3d 710, 719-720. 8. McGinnity v. Kirk, 2015 OK 73, ¶7, 362 P. 3d 186, 189-190. 9. Emphasis added. McGinnity, ¶7. 10. The footnote for this quote is: “Lucas v. Bishop, 1998 OK 16, ¶ 4, 956 P.2d 871, 873 (parties agreed that 16 O.S. §11A required a contract for deed to be treated as a mortgage for the purpose of foreclosure); Smith v. Frontier Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n 1982 OK 90, 649 P.2d 536, 538 (for the purpose of applying 16 O.S. §11A and a due-onsale clause in a prior mortgage, a contract for deed in this case was not a subordinate mortgage, but a purchase money mortgage where buyer obtained equitable title and sellers retained title pending full payment on the contract for deed).” See also, Hartless v. Clarke, 2023 OK CIV APP 30, ¶¶19-20, 538 P. 3d 187, 191. 11. Id. ¶7. 12. Emphasis added. 13. McGinnity, ¶7. 14. Hartless v. Cline, 2023 OK CIV APP 30, 538 P. 3d 187. 15. Id. ¶¶19-20. 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==