Oklahoma Administrative Code Title 5 - Oklahoma Abstractors Board

Oklahoma Administrative Code Title 5 — Oklahoma Abstractors Board

1. Overview

The Oklahoma Abstractors Board regulates abstractors — professionals who compile and certify abstracts of title for real property. Abstracts are summaries of all documents affecting ownership, liens, encumbrances, and interests recorded against real estate in county records. The Board enforces standards to ensure abstracts are accurate, complete, and reliable.

Title 5 of the Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) contains the rules adopted by the Board pursuant to statutory authority, primarily from the Oklahoma Abstractors Law (found in Title 1 of the Oklahoma Statutes). These rules regulate licensing, preparation of abstracts, operation of abstract plants, complaints, and enforcement.

2. Key Definitions

The rules begin by defining important terms to clarify scope and responsibilities:

Abstractor: A person or company licensed to prepare abstracts of title.

Abstract Plant: The physical or electronic compilation of all public records (deeds, mortgages, liens, court judgments, etc.) affecting title to real estate in a county.

Certificate of Authority: A license issued to an abstractor allowing them to operate legally.

Electronic Abstract: An abstract in digital format that meets standards set by the Board.

Land Index and Name Index: Components of the abstract plant. The land index categorizes documents by parcel or legal description; the name index categorizes by owner or party name.

These precise definitions set the stage for uniformity and reliability in abstracting practices.

3. Licensing and Certificates of Authority

Anyone engaging in abstracting must be licensed by the Board and hold a current Certificate of Authority.

The Board issues permits to develop abstract plants and certificates to conduct abstracting business.

Temporary certificates may be issued under special circumstances.

Certificates and permits are subject to renewal and may be revoked for cause.

This licensing framework protects consumers by ensuring that only qualified, regulated individuals or companies perform abstracting services.

4. Abstract Plant Requirements

An abstract plant must:

Include all recorded and filed instruments legally imparting constructive notice (deeds, mortgages, liens, judgments, pending suits, tax liens, court records).

Contain a current land index and name index.

Be maintained accurately, ensuring completeness and accessibility.

Include documents from the offices of county clerk and court clerk.

The Board requires periodic audits to verify compliance with these standards.

5. Preparation of Abstracts

Rules specify what must be included in abstracts of title:

Abstracts must cover all records relevant to the estate or interest searched, typically fee simple unless otherwise requested (e.g., mineral interests).

Abstracts must include all liens, judgments, pending suits, tax liens, and other encumbrances.

Abstracts must be prepared timely and include any extensions or supplements if title insurance is involved.

Abstractors must provide clear, separate billing for abstracting services (no bundled fees with title insurance or closing fees).

When electronic abstracts are provided, conversion fees must be disclosed, and the format must be accessible and non-proprietary.

6. Complaints and Enforcement

The rules establish procedures for handling complaints against abstractors or abstract plants:

Complaints can be filed by any interested party.

The Board investigates complaints, holds hearings if necessary, and may impose penalties, including suspension or revocation of licenses.

Abstractors have rights to due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Appeals from Board decisions generally require exhaustion of administrative remedies before judicial review.

7. Important Case Law

Arbuckle Abstract Company v. Scott (1998)

This case involved an applicant seeking to establish an abstract plant. The Court emphasized the necessity of exhausting administrative remedies before pursuing judicial relief. The applicant had prematurely filed for declaratory relief without going through the administrative process first.

The case clarified that the Board (or relevant administrative body) has the primary authority to determine whether an abstract plant contains all legally required records.

The Court refused to intervene until the administrative agency had the opportunity to decide on the matter, reinforcing the principle of agency deference.

Denney v. Scott (1992)

This case addressed issues surrounding the ownership and transfer of Certificates of Authority issued to abstract companies.

The Court upheld the administrative agency’s factual findings, reinforcing that such findings must be supported by substantial evidence.

It emphasized procedural requirements, such as clear findings of fact and conclusions of law in agency orders, and proper notice to involved parties.

The decision underlined that Certificates of Authority are subject to statutory and regulatory control, including transfer and cancellation procedures.

8. Practical Application

Before offering abstracting services, businesses must ensure their abstract plants are complete and meet Board standards.

Abstractors must stay current with regulatory requirements, including disclosures for electronic abstracts and transparent fee structures.

Complaints about abstractors or abstracts trigger Board investigations, which can lead to sanctions.

Disputes about abstract plant completeness or licensing must first be resolved administratively before judicial action.

Abstractors should maintain clear, accurate records and indexes as defined by rule to avoid penalties or license revocation.

9. Summary

The Oklahoma Abstractors Board’s rules in Title 5 of the Oklahoma Administrative Code create a regulatory framework ensuring that:

Abstractors operate under a licensing system,

Abstract plants are comprehensive and accurate,

Abstracts of title are complete, transparent, and reliable,

The public and real estate professionals can trust the abstracting process,

Complaints and enforcement mechanisms are in place to maintain integrity,

Courts generally defer to the Board’s expertise and processes, provided due process is followed.

The case law confirms the primacy of administrative remedies, adherence to procedural rules, and the Board’s authority to regulate the abstracting industry effectively.

LEAVE A COMMENT

0 comments