Question Submitted by: The Honorable Brent Howard, Oklahoma State Senate, District 38

2024 OK AG 2
CourtOklahoma Attorney General Reports
DecidedFebruary 6, 2024
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 OK AG 2 (Question Submitted by: The Honorable Brent Howard, Oklahoma State Senate, District 38) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oklahoma Attorney General Reports primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Question Submitted by: The Honorable Brent Howard, Oklahoma State Senate, District 38, 2024 OK AG 2 (Okla. Super. Ct. 2024).

Opinion

OSCN Found Document:Question Submitted by: The Honorable Brent Howard, Oklahoma State Senate, District 38
  1. Previous Case
  2. Top Of Index
  3. This Point in Index
  4. Citationize
  5. Next Case
  6. Print Only

Question Submitted by: The Honorable Brent Howard, Oklahoma State Senate, District 38
2024 OK AG 2
Decided: 02/06/2024
Oklahoma Attorney General Opinions


Cite as: 2024 OK AG 2, __ __

¶0 This office has received your request for an official Attorney General Opinion in which you ask, in effect, the following question:
What instruments are not subject to the affidavit requirement in title 60, section 121 (Supp.2023) of the Oklahoma Statutes?

I.

SUMMARY

¶1 As of November 1, 2023, section 121 requires the filing of an affidavit when recording a deed with an Oklahoma county clerk. (S.B. 212, 2023 Leg., 59th Sess., 2023 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 327, § 1). In addition, the amendments mandate this office promulgate template affidavits and vest it with the authority to declare one or more deeds exempt from the affidavit requirement. Pursuant to that authority, this office concludes that the following instruments and entities are exempt from the affidavit requirement in section 121:

1. Deeds where the grantee is a domestic governmental body, including, for example, the United States, the State of Oklahoma or a political subdivision thereof1, or a Tribe;2

2. State or federal court orders and decrees in probate proceedings, divorce actions, quiet title actions to cure a defect in title, or other judicial orders and decrees affecting title to land;

3. Deeds that do not convey or otherwise transfer title or ownership when recording the instrument, including transfer on death deeds and correction deeds; and

4. Deeds conveying only oil or gas interests.

3

II.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Since statehood, Oklahoma law has regulated the rights of aliens to own or hold title to land in Oklahoma. OKLA. CONST. art. XXII, § 1.4 Indeed, the constitutional provisions are vitalized by statute, which implements this prohibition to prohibit those who are not United States citizens from acquiring title or owning land in Oklahoma. 60 O.S.Supp.2023, § 121. Oklahoma's land ownership prohibitions are similar to longstanding federal laws on this issue, enacted to prevent aliens' acquisition of large tracts of land in the Western territories. 48 U.S.C. § 1501--1508; see also Larkin v. Washington Loan & Trust Co., 31 F.2d 635 (D.C. Cir. 1929). Thus, the plain language of Oklahoma's constitutional and statutory provisions, as well as case law, evidence common concern with Oklahoma land acquisitions by aliens (i.e., foreign) and those who do not intend to attach themselves to the State of Oklahoma.

¶3 Exceptions to the ownership prohibitions have existed since statehood for Native Americans born within the United States and for non-citizens who may become bona fide residents of the State of Oklahoma. Then, in 1976, this office conclusively determined that the term "person" in section 121 prohibits a foreign country from acquiring or holding property in the State except under conditions outlined in article XXII, section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution and title 60, sections 121--124. 1976 OK AG 253. Subsequently, in 1981, the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined that the drafters of the Oklahoma Constitution did not intend for domesticated foreign corporations to be subject to the same restrictions imposed on aliens. State ex rel. Cartwright v. Hillcrest Invs., Ltd., 1981 OK 27, ¶ 31, 630 P.2d 1253, 1260.5 These constitutional and statutory provisions have continuously operated as the Legislature intended--to restrict ownership of Oklahoma land by foreign persons and foreign entities, including a foreign country.6

¶4 Following passage of State Question 788 in 2018, permitting licensed legal cultivation, use, and possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes, Oklahoma continues to experience a massive surge in illicit marijuana grow operations, which are often connected to foreign criminal enterprises.

7 Further, these unlawful operations threaten public safety and harm Oklahoma communities.8 In response, the Legislature enacted a series of laws aimed to help law enforcement agencies combat the illegal marijuana operations in Oklahoma. It is one of these measures, Senate Bill 212, that you inquire about. Senate Bill 212 changed Oklahoma's land ownership restrictions in section 121 in several ways.

¶5 First, the Legislature added an express restriction on an alien's indirect ownership of land. See also

1979 OK AG 286¶ 23 ("An alien may not directly or indirectly acquire title to or own land in the State of Oklahoma.") (Emphasis added.) Second, the Legislature added an exemption to the land ownership restrictions for a business entity that is engaged in regulated interstate commerce in accordance with federal law.9 Finally, the legislative amendments require an affidavit be included with a deed recorded with a county clerk.10 With the latter change, the Legislature also vested this office with the authority to exempt any deed when deemed necessary. Accordingly, in light of your inquiry and to ensure uniformity in implementation, as well as protect state and local officers in their good faith implementation of the laws of the State, this office considers it necessary to exempt certain deeds as set forth below.11

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Deeds where the grantee is a domestic governmental body, including, for example, the United States, the State of Oklahoma or a political subdivision thereof, or a Tribe

¶6 Three elements must be present to trigger the requirement to file an affidavit when recording a deed with a county clerk. First, the grantee(s) must be a "person, business entity, or trust" taking title or ownership in compliance with the land ownership laws." Second, the instrument must be a "deed." Finally, at the time of recording the deed, title or ownership must be transferred. 60 O.S.Supp.2023, § 121(B).

¶7 The first element is likely dispositive in relation to governmental entities. It requires determining whether a governmental entity is a "person, business entity, or trust." Legislative intent controls statutory interpretation. Nealis v. Baird, 1999 OK 98, ¶ 35, 996 P.2d 438, 452--53. Only where the legislative intent cannot be ascertained from the statutory language are rules of statutory construction employed. State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Colclazier, 1997 OK 134, ¶ 9, 950 P.2d 824, 827.

¶8 Oklahoma statute defines "person" to include "bodies politic or corporate." 25 O.S.2021, § 16.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Ex Rel. Department of Human Services v. Colclazier
1997 OK 134 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1997)
State Ex Rel. Cartwright v. Hillcrest Investments, Ltd.
1981 OK 27 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1981)
Haggard v. Haggard
1998 OK 124 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1998)
Hendrick v. Walters
1993 OK 162 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1993)
Oklahoma Ass'n for Equitable Taxation v. City of Oklahoma City
1995 OK 62 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1995)
Boswell Energy Corp. v. Arrowhead Homes, Inc.
1999 OK CIV APP 36 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1999)
Lewis v. Sac & Fox Tribe of Oklahoma Housing Authority
1994 OK 20 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1994)
Nealis v. Baird
1999 OK 98 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1999)
Oliver v. City of Tulsa
1982 OK 121 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1982)
State Ex Rel. York v. Turpen
681 P.2d 763 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1984)
K & K Food Services, Inc. v. S & H, INC.
2000 OK 31 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2000)
Gomes v. Hameed
2008 OK 3 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2008)
Rasure v. Sparks
1919 OK 231 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1919)
National Fire Insurance v. Patterson
1935 OK 161 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Foley v. Worthington
1949 OK 180 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1949)
Wall v. Marouk
2013 OK 36 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2013)
Compsource Mut. Ins. Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
435 P.3d 90 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2018)
Larkin v. Washington Loan & Trust Co.
31 F.2d 635 (D.C. Circuit, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 OK AG 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/question-submitted-by-the-honorable-brent-howard-oklahoma-state-senate-oklaag-2024.