Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 16, § 11A (2026)

Constructive mortgage - Exemptions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All contracts for deed for purchase and sale of real property made for the purpose or with the intention of receiving the payment of money and made for the purpose of establishing an immediate and continuing right of possession of the described real property, whether such instruments be from the debtor to the creditor or from the debtor to some third person in trust for the creditor, shall to that extent be deemed and held mortgages, and shall be subject to the same rules of foreclosure and to the same regulations, restraints and forms as are prescribed in relation to mortgages. No foreclosure shall be initiated, nor shall the court allow such

proceedings, unless the documents have been filed of record in the county clerk's office, and mortgage tax paid thereon, in the amount required for regular mortgage transactions. Provided, however, mutual help and occupancy agreements executed by an Indian housing authority created pursuant to Section 1057 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes shall not be considered to be mortgages or contracts for deed under the provisions of this section. Amended by Laws 1983, c. 108, § 1, emerg. eff. May 12, 1983.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Hensley v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 398 P.3d 11 (Okla. 2017).
Hensley v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 398 P.3d 11 (Okla. 2017). · cites it 2× “16 O.S.2011 § 11A states in part: All contracts for deed for purchase and sale of real property made for the purpose or with the intention of receiving the payment of money and made for the purpose of establishing an immediate and continuing right of possession of the described…”
Mcginnity v. Kirk, 2015 OK 73 (Okla. 2015). · cites it 2× “No reference is made to 16 O.S. § 11A. The Kirks filed a response to a request that the trial court rule on the motion to confirm sale.”
Hous. Auth. of Seminole Nation v. Harjo, 790 P.2d 1098 (Okla. 1990). · cites it 2× “She also protested the constitutionality of 16 O.S.1981 § 11A. 1 At trial she agreed that back payments were due, but urged that a set-off be granted inasmuch as the plumbing did not work.”
Lucas v. Bishop, 1998 OK 16 (Okla. 1998). “¶ 4 The parties agree that Lucas had no right to declare a forfeiture under the contract for deed because of 16 O.S.1991 § 11A, which provides, Ah contracts for deed .”
Conner v. Nw. Nat'l Cas. Co., 774 P.2d 1055 (Okla. 1989). “16 O.S.Supp.1983 § 11A. The endorsement here must be viewed as one protecting a mortgagee under a loss payee clause.”
Abboud v. Abboud, 2000 OK CIV APP 116 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000). “Wickizer was misplaced and the summary judgment based thereon must be reversed.”
Hensley v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2017 OK 57 (Okla. 2017). · cites it 8× “FOOTNOTES 1 16 O.S.2011 § 11A states in part: All contracts for deed for purchase and sale of real property made for the purpose or with the intention of receiving the payment of money and made for the purpose of establishing an immediate and continuing right of possession of…”
Mcginnity v. Kirk, 2015 OK 73 (Okla. 2015). · cites it 22× “By 16 O.S. 2011 § 11A, contracts for deed "made for the purpose of establishing an immediate and continuing right of possession .”
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Sudderth, 854 P.2d 375 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993). “16 O.S.1991 § 11A, Smith v. Frontier Federal Savings & Loan Assoc.”
Hartless v. Cline, 2023 OK CIV APP 30 (Okla. Civ. App. 2023). · cites it 5× “¶9 The trial court determined that the Contract was unenforceable because it was to be treated as a mortgage pursuant to 16 O.S.2021, § 11A 16 O.S.2021, § 4 ¶10 Thereafter, Hartless timely moved for new trial, asserting the trial court had erred by finding the Contract…”
Hartless v. Cline, 2023 OK CIV APP 30 (Okla. Civ. App. 2023). · cites it 5× “¶9 The trial court determined that the Contract was unenforceable because it was to be treated as a mortgage pursuant to 16 O.S.2021, § 11A, and the mortgage was not signed by the party granting the mortgage (Hartless) as required by 16 O.”
In re: Nguyen Win Props. LLC (Bankr. N.D. Okla 2026). · cites it 2× “37 See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 16, § 11A; § 541(d); McGinnity v.”
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.