Okla. Stat. » Title 60 — PROPERTY
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 60, § 313 (2026)

Thing in action may be transferred

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A thing in action, arising out of the violation of a right of property, or out of an obligation, may be transferred by the owner. Upon the death of the owner, it passes to his personal representatives, except where, in the case provided by law, it passes to his devisees or successors in office. R.L.1910, § 6740.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1957–2013 · leading case: ACCOSIF v. Am. States Ins. Co., 2000 OK 21, 1 P.3d 987.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
ACCOSIF v. Am. States Ins. Co., 2000 OK 21, 1 P.3d 987. · cites it 2× “Although the provisions of 60 O.S.1991 § 313 would ordinarily make unenforceable the assignment of a thing in action in tort, an exception is recognized where, as here, the claim's transfer is effected by operation of law.”
First Pryority Bank v. Moon, 2014 OK CIV APP 21. · cites it 2× “" 60 O.S. §313. ¶52 Early in statehood, the Oklahoma Supreme Court equated a "chose in action" with a "thing in action," and, under the statutory predecessor to §313, recognized the right of an owner to assign a "chose in action": The purpose of [the statute, now, 60 O.”
Drabek v. City of Norman, 946 P.2d 658 (Okla. 1996). “The Court noted that Title 60 O.S. § 313, which provides that a thing in action arising out of the violation of a right of property may be transferred by the owner, was a personal right and did not pass by warranty deed, stating at page 802: “No authority is cited to show a…”
Fin. Corp. v. Modern Materials Co., 312 P.2d 455 (Okla. 1957). “Furthermore, such right would be assignable, even without such language, by virtue of the provisions of 60 O.S.1951 § 313. It is not, however, the question of the right to assign which is involved here, but rather the right or power to, by partial assignment, split a single…”
In re Gordon, 484 B.R. 811 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 2013). “Okla. Stat. tit. 60, § 312 . . Okla. Stat.”
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.