Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 136 (2026)

Statute of frauds

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The following contracts are invalid, unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged, by an agent of the party or by a broker of the party pursuant to Sections 858-351 through 858-363 of Title 59 of the Oklahoma Statutes: 1. An agreement that, by its terms, is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof; 2. A special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another, except in the cases provided for in the article on guaranty; 3. An agreement made upon consideration of marriage, other than a mutual promise to marry; or 4. An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one (1) year, or for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein; and such agreement, if made by an agent or a broker of the party sought to be charged, is invalid, unless the authority of the agent or the broker be in writing, subscribed by the party sought to be charged. R.L. 1910, § 941. Amended by Laws 2003, c. 31, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2003; Laws 2013, c. 240, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2013.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 53 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1950–2025 · leading case: Sperling v. Marler, 1998 OK 81 (Okla. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sperling v. Marler, 1998 OK 81 (Okla. 1998). · cites it 3× “However, because Delay is the only defendant to have signed the sight draft which contains the reference to the purchase price, Plaintiff attempts to bind Marler by Delay’s actions based upon an agency relationship between the two defendants.”

James Energy Co. v. HCG Energy Corp., 847 P.2d 333 (Okla. 1993). · cites it 2× “397 (1931); Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 136 (1981). Where a lease must be in writing, the assignment of that lease must also be in writing.”

Sellers v. Sellers, 428 P.2d 230 (Okla. 1967). · cites it 2× “This alleged oral agreement was entered into prior to the effective date of the Uniform Commercial Code to which we just referred and its validity is controlled by the provisions of 15 O.S.1961, § 136, which states, in part, as follows: “The following contracts are invalid,…”

Hardin v. First Cash Fin. Servs., Inc., 465 F.3d 470 (10th Cir. 2006). “See Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 136 (1) (requiring that a contract be in writing and signed by the party to be charged unless capable of being "performed within a year from the making [thereof]”); Krause v.”

Smoot v. B & J Restoration Servs., Inc., 279 P.3d 805 (Okla. Civ. App. 2012). “See 15 O.S.2011, § 136 (agreements to answer for debt, default or miscarriage of another must be in writing).”

Cinco Enter., Inc. v. Benso, 890 P.2d 866 (Okla. 1994). “A special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another, except in the cases provided for in the article on guaranty.”

Cloud v. Winn, 303 P.2d 305 (Okla. 1956). · cites it 2× “The present action involves the sale and assignment of an oil and gas lease pursuant to an alleged escrow agreement, and it" is essential that the facts are such as to establish the contract and escrow agreement and show that the party to be charged has signed the same or some…”

Chalfant v. Tubb, 453 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (N.D. Okla. 2006). “Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 136 . A contract that provides express dates extending beyond one year from the execution of the contract must be in writing.”

Roussel v. Russell, 339 P.2d 522 (Okla. 1959). · cites it 2× “After all of such objections were rejected by the trial court, and the cause was submitted to the jury, the verdict was for plaintiff, in the principal amount he sued for, but the court in the judgment thereafter rendered for plaintiff, added to said principal sum, the interest…”

Haskell Lemon Constr. Co. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12 of Edmond, 589 P.2d 677 (Okla. 1979). “Appellant specifically alleged the superintendent’s assurances were oral promises to answer for the debt of another (McBride) which was unex-ecuted.”

Webster v. Woods, 586 P.2d 337 (Okla. Civ. App. 1978). “” Although the District Court did not refer to any authority it is apparent that he was referring to the Statute of Frauds and the parol evidence rule, 15 O.S.1971, §§ 136, 137. We reverse. In ruling on a demurrer the allegations challenged by the demurrer are to be liberally…”

Kirkpatrick v. Jacobson's Lifetime Bldgs., Inc., 467 P.2d 489 (Okla. 1970). · cites it 2× “00 and therefore is within the statute of frauds, 15 O.S.1961, § 136. We do not agree. The contract has been performed fully on the part of the one against whom the statute is asserted.”

Show all 53 citing cases →

— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 136(1) — 1 case

Stolzer v. Beer, 383 P.2d 686 (Okla. 1963).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 136(2) — 2 cases

Commodore Home Sys., Inc. v. Citicorp Acceptance Co., Inc., 780 P.2d 674 (Okla. 1989).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 136(4) — 2 cases

Sellers v. Sellers, 428 P.2d 230 (Okla. 1967). “This alleged oral agreement was entered into prior to the effective date of the Uniform Commercial Code to which we just referred and its validity is controlled by the provisions of 15 O.S.1961, § 136, which states, in part, as follows: “The following contracts are invalid,…”

Fox v. Overton, 534 P.2d 679 (Okla. 1975).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 136(5) — 4 cases

Sperling v. Marler, 1998 OK 81 (Okla. 1998). “However, because Delay is the only defendant to have signed the sight draft which contains the reference to the purchase price, Plaintiff attempts to bind Marler by Delay’s actions based upon an agency relationship between the two defendants.”

Claiborne v. Claiborne, 467 P.2d 157 (Okla. 1970).

Pettit v. Vogt, 495 P.2d 395 (Okla. 1972).

Beaton v. Pure Oil Co., 483 P.2d 1145 (Okla. 1971).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.