Brown v. WM Acree Trust, No. 93,864.

CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
Citation2000 OK CIV APP 40,999 P.2d 1119
Decision Date14 February 2000
PartiesIda Mae BROWN, Dennis Binder, and Shirley Ann Williams, Plaintiff/Appellants, v. W.M. ACREE TRUST, Ron Acree, trustee, Defendant/Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 93,864.

999 P.2d 1119
2000 OK CIV APP 40

Ida Mae BROWN, Dennis Binder, and Shirley Ann Williams, Plaintiff/Appellants,
v.
W.M. ACREE TRUST, Ron Acree, trustee, Defendant/Appellee

No. 93,864.

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 3.

February 14, 2000.


Robert L. Ross, Lawton, Oklahoma, for Appellant.

Phil W. Gordon, Chickasha, Oklahoma, for Appellee.

Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 3.

999 P.2d 1120
Opinion by CAROL M. HANSEN, Vice-Chief Judge

¶ 1 On June 12, 1984, Plaintiffs Shirley Ann Williams Binder and her husband, Dennis Binder, (Binders), executed a quit claim deed to certain property in Lawton, Oklahoma, to Plaintiff, Ida Mae Brown. Some unknown person filed the deed. Then on September 10,1991, the records in the county clerk's office reflect that Ida Mae Brown and her husband executed a quit claim deed to the property to the W.M. Acree Trust. Ms. Brown denies executing this deed. The deed was filed of record on October 17, 1991. Binders have remained in possession of the property at all times.

¶ 2 In May of 1998, Plaintiffs filed this action in district court against the trust and its trustee, Ron Acree (Defendant), claiming to be the legal and beneficial owners of the property. Their amended petition alleged Binders executed the quit claim deed to Ida Mae Brown in order to secure a loan from her. They claimed Ms. Brown agreed not to file that deed. They further alleged Defendant committed fraud by forging Ms. Brown's signature on the quit claim deed from her to the trust and filing it of record. They asked for damages and an order finding they were the rightful legal owners of the property. Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim asking that title to the property be quieted in the trust. Several months later Defendant filed a motion for final judgment of dismissal with prejudice and a motion for summary judgment attaching the recorded deeds. In his brief in support, Defendant points out the trial court had sustained a previous motion by Defendant to determine defenses and gave Plaintiffs 25 days to amend their petition and they had not done so.1 This alone he claimed, is a basis for granting his motion for final judgment.

¶ 3 Defendant also raised the bar of the statute of limitations contained in 12 O.S.1991 § 95(3) as an affirmative defense. The deed from Ms. Brown to Defendant was filed in 1991 and Plaintiffs did not file their petition in the present action until 1998. Section 95(3) provides a two year statute of limitations for the recovery of real property when the relief is based on fraud. This section also provides that "the cause of action in such case shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery of the fraud." Citing Matter of Woodward, 1976 OK 55, 549 P.2d 1207 in support, Defendant argued Plaintiffs were charged with constructive notice of fraud from the filing of the quit claim deed in the public records.

¶ 4 After Defendant filed his motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs filed their amended petition. They also filed a response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment pointing out they did not discover the fraud perpetrated by Defendant until they became...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Fiscus v. Liberty Mortg. Corp., Court of Appeals No. 13CA0420
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • June 19, 2014
    ...property to avoid the expiration of the statute of limitations on claims to remove such filings. See, e.g., Brown v. W.M. Acree Trust, 999 P.2d 1119, 1121 (Okla.Civ.App.2000) (“[R]easonable diligence [for purposes of the statute of limitations] does not require [property owners] to check th......
1 cases
  • Fiscus v. Liberty Mortg. Corp., Court of Appeals No. 13CA0420
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • June 19, 2014
    ...property to avoid the expiration of the statute of limitations on claims to remove such filings. See, e.g., Brown v. W.M. Acree Trust, 999 P.2d 1119, 1121 (Okla.Civ.App.2000) (“[R]easonable diligence [for purposes of the statute of limitations] does not require [property owners] to check th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT