A. The purchaser may recover in a civil action only in the event of any of the following: 1. The failure of the seller to provide to the purchaser a disclaimer statement or a disclosure statement and any amendment prior to acceptance of an offer to purchase; 2. The failure of the seller to disclose in the disclosure statement or any amendment provided to the purchaser a defect which
was actually known to the seller prior to acceptance of an offer to purchase; or 3. The failure of the real estate licensee to disclose to the purchaser any defects in the property actually known to the real estate licensee prior to acceptance of an offer to purchase and which were not included in the disclosure statement or any amendment provided to the purchaser. B. The sole and exclusive civil remedy at common law or otherwise for a failure under subsection A of this section by the seller or the real estate licensee shall be an action for actual damages, including the cost of repairing the defect, suffered by the purchaser as a result of a defect existing in the property as of the date of acceptance by the seller of an offer to purchase and shall not include the remedy of exemplary damages. C. Any action brought under this act shall be commenced within two (2) years after the date of transfer of real property subject to this act. D. In any civil action brought under this act, the prevailing party shall be allowed court costs and a reasonable attorney fee to be set by the court and to be collected as costs. E. A transfer of a possessory interest in property subject to this act may not be invalidated solely because of the failure of any person to comply with this act. F. This act applies to, regulates and determines rights, duties, obligations and remedies at common law or otherwise of the seller, the real estate licensee and the purchaser with respect to disclosure of defects in property and supplants and abrogates all common law liability, rights, duties, obligations and remedies therefore. Added by Laws 1994, c. 198, § 7, eff. July 1, 1995. Amended by Laws 2003, c. 52, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2003.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case:
Rickard v. Coulimore, 505 P.3d 920 (Okla. 2022).
Rickard v. Coulimore, 505 P.3d 920 (Okla. 2022).
“See 60 O.S.2011 § 837 White v. Lim , 2009 OK 79 224 P.”
Lopez v. Rollins, 303 P.3d 911 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “See 60 O.S. § 837(A)(2)-B). The RPCDA defines "defect" as "a condition, malfunction or problem that would have a materially adverse effect on the monetary value of the property, or that would impair the health or safety of future occupants of the property.”
White v. Heng Ly Lim, 2009 OK 79 (Okla. 2009).
“Respondent Whites are not arguing with the interpretation that only actual damages are available under 60 O.S. § 837 for a violation of the RDCA.”
Boggs v. Great N. Ins., 659 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (N.D. Okla. 2009).
“Okla. Stat. tit. 60, § 837 (3)(B). Therefore, any potential damage award for "known” defects in the Residence’s fireplaces would have been limited to contract damages and excluded excess tort damages.”
Toma v. Toma, 2007 OK 52 (Okla. 2007).
“Meiser, 60 O.S.2001 § 837(B) was amended in 2003.”
Musket Corp. v. Star Fuel of Oklahoma, 606 F. App'x 439 (10th Cir. 2015).
“2003), superseded on other grounds by Okla. Stat. tit. 60, § 837 . We have not been directed *450 to any Oklahoma cases imposing a similar requirement for equitable estoppel.”
Lara (N.D. Okla. 2025).
“” Okla. Stat. tit. 60, § 837 (B) (emphasis added).”
Lara (N.D. Okla. 2025).
“” Okla. Stat. tit. 60, § 837 (B) (emphasis added).”
In Re Amendments to the Oklahoma Unif. Jury Instructions, 2014 OK 100 (Okla. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Committee Comments Under 60 O.S. 2011 § 837(B), the exclusive remedy for failure to disclose a defect in a property disclosure statement is the "actual damages, including the cost of repairing the defect, suffered by the purchaser as a result of a defect existing in the property…”
Bentley v. Kirk, 2015 OK CIV APP 43 (Okla. Civ. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “2011 § 1-509 (civil suit pursuant to section 10 of Oklahoma Uniform Securities Act must be "commenced within one year after the violation occurred "); 60 O.S.2011 § 837 (action for failing to disclose real property defect shall be commenced "within two (2) years after the date…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 60, § 837(A)(2) — 1 case
Lopez v. Rollins, 303 P.3d 911 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013).
“See 60 O.S. § 837(A)(2)-B). The RPCDA defines "defect" as "a condition, malfunction or problem that would have a materially adverse effect on the monetary value of the property, or that would impair the health or safety of future occupants of the property.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 60, § 837(B) — 3 cases
Toma v. Toma, 2007 OK 52 (Okla. 2007).
“Meiser, 60 O.S.2001 § 837(B) was amended in 2003.”
Lopez v. Rollins, 303 P.3d 911 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013).
“See 60 O.S. § 837(A)(2)-B). The RPCDA defines "defect" as "a condition, malfunction or problem that would have a materially adverse effect on the monetary value of the property, or that would impair the health or safety of future occupants of the property.”
In Re Amendments to the Oklahoma Unif. Jury Instructions, 2014 OK 100 (Okla. 2014).
“Committee Comments Under 60 O.S. 2011 § 837(B), the exclusive remedy for failure to disclose a defect in a property disclosure statement is the "actual damages, including the cost of repairing the defect, suffered by the purchaser as a result of a defect existing in the property…”
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.