If my Oklahoma property is sold at tax sale for more than I owed in delinquent taxes, do I get the leftover money, and how long do I have to claim it?

Plain-English summary

When property taxes go unpaid in Oklahoma for three or more years, the county sells the property at tax sale. If the property fetches more than the tax debt owed, that surplus goes to the former owner, but only if claimed within one year. After one year, the leftover money goes to the county's resale property fund.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Tyler v. Hennepin County unanimously held that keeping a surplus from a tax sale violates the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. Minnesota had sold a $40,000 home for a $15,000 tax bill and kept all $40,000. The Court ruled the government could not "use the toehold of the tax debt to confiscate more property than was due."

Senator Sacchieri asked the AG: does Oklahoma's one-year deadline for claiming the surplus violate Tyler?

AG Drummond answered three questions:

1. Is the one-year deadline constitutional? Yes. Tyler invalidated keeping the surplus outright; it did not invalidate reasonable procedural deadlines for claiming it. The Supreme Court's 1956 Nelson v. City of New York decision approved a similar deadline-based system. Oklahoma's one-year window is "a rational qualification on the exercise of a valuable, but not boundless, right."
2. Can Oklahoma restrict assignment of the right to claim? Yes. Section 3131(D)'s 2014 amendment forbids assignments after the tax sale begins. That limits when an assignment can occur, not whether. The owner still has the right to claim the surplus directly. A restriction on assignment is not a Takings Clause violation.
3. Does interest stop accruing if the county treasurer fails to remit funds to the OTC? Yes. Section 3131(D) puts the duty to transmit on the county treasurer. If the treasurer fails to do so promptly, the taxpayer cannot be penalized for that government inaction.

What this means for you

If your property is being sold at tax sale

Track the sale date carefully. You have one year from the sale to file a claim with the county for any excess proceeds. If the property sold for more than what you owed, the surplus is yours, but only if you act within that year.

To claim, contact the county treasurer's office in the county where the property is located. They are required to hold the funds in a separate account in your name (the record owner as of the date the resale began).

If you missed the one-year window

Sorry: under § 3131(D) and this opinion, the money goes to the county resale property fund after one year. Tyler does not give you an extension. The AG noted that "relief from the hardship imposed by a state statute is the responsibility of the state legislature."

If you want to assign your surplus rights

Assignment is allowed before the tax sale begins. After the resale starts, the 2014 amendment makes new assignments invalid. If you have a pending tax sale and need to plan for the surplus (e.g., to pay other creditors, to a family member who can manage the claim), document any assignment in writing before the resale begins.

If you are a county treasurer

Your statutory duties under § 3131:

1. Notify the OTC of any excess within 30 days of the sale.
2. After the OTC tells you about other tax liabilities (within their 60-day window), remit "the amount of the outstanding tax liabilities or the excess proceeds, whichever is less."
3. Hold any remaining surplus in a separate fund for the record owner for one year.
4. After one year unclaimed, transfer the funds to the county resale property fund.

The opinion says interest and penalties on additional tax liabilities won't accrue against the taxpayer if you fail to make timely remittance to the OTC. Your delay is treated as the State's, not the taxpayer's.

If you invest in tax sale properties or buy distressed surplus claims

The 2014 assignment restriction is significant. You can buy a future-surplus assignment from a property owner only before the tax resale begins. Once the resale starts, the owner cannot assign the right to you. This narrows the window for the surplus-claim purchase market.

If you are a property owner facing tax delinquency

You have rights Tyler spelled out. The government can sell the property to satisfy the tax debt. It cannot keep the surplus. Oklahoma respects this. But you must affirmatively claim the surplus within one year, counties do not automatically mail you a check.

If you are a real-estate or tax attorney

The opinion essentially answers the question many practitioners had after Tyler: does Oklahoma's tax-sale system survive? Yes. The one-year deadline survives because Tyler did not address procedural deadlines (it addressed outright forfeiture). The 2014 assignment limit survives because procedural limits on assignment are not unconstitutional takings.

Common questions

Q: How do I find out if my property's tax sale generated a surplus?
A: Contact the county treasurer's office. The treasurer must notify the OTC within 30 days of any sale that generates excess proceeds. Records are public and the treasurer can tell you whether a surplus exists for your property.

Q: How do I file a claim?
A: Each county may have its own forms and process. Contact the county treasurer's office in the county where the property was located. Have your identification, evidence of ownership at the time of sale, and any other supporting documents.

Q: Can heirs claim the surplus if I die before the year is up?
A: The opinion does not address this directly. As a property right, the claim should pass to heirs through normal probate. Consult a probate attorney quickly if you are an heir of someone whose property was sold at tax sale.

Q: I paid my taxes but my property was still sold. What now?
A: That's a separate issue (procedural due process under Nelson). The opinion is about excess proceeds, not the validity of the sale itself.

Q: Why does the state allow assignment before the sale but not after?
A: The legislature concluded that pre-sale assignments are voluntary financial planning, while post-sale assignments often involve middle-men taking large cuts of distressed claims. Limiting post-sale assignments protects taxpayers from predatory practices.

Q: Are there any Oklahoma cases on this since Tyler?
A: This AG opinion is the first official guidance applying Tyler to Oklahoma's framework. It uses the U.S. Supreme Court's 1956 Nelson v. City of New York (procedural deadlines OK) and the Tyler analysis (no surplus retention) to harmonize the two.

Q: What if I lose my home for $5,000 in taxes and it sells for $200,000?
A: You owe the $5,000 plus costs. The county takes that, and the remaining $195,000 is yours: but you must claim it within one year of the sale.

Background and statutory framework

Oklahoma taxes real property annually under 68 O.S. § 3101. After three years of unpaid taxes, the county treasurer must "advertise and sell" the property at public tax sale (§ 3105). Following 2008 statutory revisions, Oklahoma has a single sale (called a "resale") rather than separate initial-sale and resale procedures (Chisholm Trail Constr. v. Mueggeburg, 2014).

The current excess-proceeds provision in § 3131(D) has roots in a 1965 statute that gave a two-year claim period. The legislature shortened the period to one year in 2009 and added the assignment restriction in 2014. The 2023 amendments added the multi-step OTC remittance procedure.

The federal constitutional analysis turns on Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023). Tyler invalidated outright surplus retention but explicitly left in place the Nelson v. City of New York (1956) framework approving reasonable procedural deadlines for surplus claims. Many states have similar deadlines (Alaska 6 months, Connecticut 90 days, Idaho 60 days, North Dakota 90 days, Oklahoma 1 year, Wisconsin 1 year). The state-by-state list in the footnotes provides a helpful comparative reference.

The state takings clause in Article II, § 24 of the Oklahoma Constitution mirrors the federal Fifth Amendment for these purposes. The opinion treats the federal analysis as dispositive.

The "diligence" principle from Texaco v. Short (1982), that even constitutional rights require timely assertion, is the foundation for the AG's conclusion that the one-year deadline does not violate Tyler.

Citations and references

Constitution:
- U.S. Const. amend. V, Takings Clause
- Okla. Const. art. II, § 24: State takings clause

Statutes:
- 68 O.S. § 3105, Tax sale procedure
- 68 O.S. § 3131(C), (D): Excess proceeds; one-year claim period; OTC remittance

Cases:
- Tyler v. Hennepin Cnty., 598 U.S. 631 (2023), outright surplus retention is a taking
- Nelson v. City of New York, 352 U.S. 103 (1956), procedural deadlines for surplus claims OK
- Texaco v. Short, 454 U.S. 516 (1982), diligence requirement for property rights
- Sherrill v. Deisenroth, 1975 OK 136, 541 P.2d 862, strict construction of tax statutes

Source

• Landing page: https://oklahoma.gov/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2025/ag-opinion-2015-10.html
• Original PDF: https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2025/A.G. Opinion 2025-10 2025 OK AG 10.pdf

Original opinion text

GENTNER DRUMMOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION
2025-10
The Honorable Kendal Sacchieri
Oklahoma State Senate, District 43
2300 N. Lincoln Boulevard, Room 430
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

July 30, 2025

Dear Senator Sacchieri:
This office has received your request for an Attorney General Opinion in which you ask, in effect,
the following questions:
1. Does the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause—as recently construed by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)—
prevent county treasurers in Oklahoma from barring property owners
from claiming the excess proceeds from a delinquent tax sale after the oneyear period set forth in title 68, section 3131(D) of the Oklahoma Statutes?
2. May Oklahoma prevent property owners from assigning their right to
excess proceeds to another entity or individual once the tax-sale process
has begun, in accordance with section 3131(D), without violating the
Takings Clause?
3. Does a county treasurer’s failure to remit the amount of the taxpayer’s
additional outstanding tax liabilities to the Oklahoma Tax Commission in
a timely manner, as required under section 3131(D), cause additional
interest or penalties to stop accruing on the remaining tax debt?
I.

SUMMARY
This opinion concerns the taxpayer’s right to the remaining excess proceeds after a property sells
at a delinquent tax sale for an amount greater than the tax debt owed. In Oklahoma, a property
owner must claim any excess proceeds within one year. 68 O.S.2021, § 3131(D). Your principal
question asks whether this modest one-year limit is constitutional. The answer is yes. By requiring
the former owner to collect any remaining proceeds within a specific amount of time, the

The Honorable Kendal Sacchieri
Oklahoma State Senate, District 43

A.G. Opinion
Page 2

Legislature has not effected an unlawful “taking” within the meaning of the U.S. and Oklahoma
Constitutions. Similarly, the statute’s restriction on assignments of the right to obtain remaining
excess proceeds does not deprive the owners of a compensable property interest. Oklahoma’s
delinquent taxpayers receive their rightful “just compensation” when the State returns any excess
proceeds to them after the tax sale. U.S. CONST. amend. V; OKLA. CONST. art. II, § 24. A restraint
on assignments does not impair the owner’s ability to obtain this surplus. Finally, section 3131(D)
requires county treasurers to remit the amount of any outstanding tax liabilities to the Oklahoma
Tax Commission (“OTC”) following a tax sale. The statute obligates the county treasurer—rather
than the individual taxpayer—to transmit the amount left due and owing. Once the sale of the
property has concluded, any additional interest or penalties attributable to the county treasurer’s
official inaction will stop accruing.
II.
BACKGROUND
Oklahoma places an annual tax on real property. 68 O.S.2021, § 3101. Once an owner’s property
taxes go unpaid for more than three years, Oklahoma law requires the county treasurer to “advertise
and sell such real estate for such taxes and all other delinquent taxes, special assessments and
costs” at a public tax sale. 1 68 O.S.Supp.2024, § 3105. If the property sells for more than the
amount of the outstanding tax liability, then the owner may collect the excess proceeds within one
year of sale. 68 O.S.2021, § 3131(D). Specifically, the statute provides that:
[a]ny remaining proceeds shall be held in the separate fund for the record owner of
such land, as shown by the county records as of the date the county resale begins,
to be withdrawn any time within one (1) year. . . . At the end of one (1) year, if such
money has not been withdrawn or collected from the county, it shall be credited to
the county resale property fund.
68 O.S.2021, § 3131(D).
A time limit for collecting excess proceeds following a tax sale has been part of Oklahoma law for
the past sixty years. The Legislature initially enacted a two-year time limit for claiming excess
funds in 1965. Section 3131(D)’s predecessor statute provided that “the excess shall be held in a
separate fund for the prior owner of such land to be withdrawn any time within two years.” 1965
Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 501, § 2 (emphasis added). This two-year claim period stood unaltered for
nearly five decades. In 2009, the Legislature amended section 3131(D), shortening to one year the
period for owners to assert their claim to excess proceeds. 2 See 2009 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 191, §

“The term ‘delinquent taxes’ . . . means taxes authorized by law, levied upon taxable property, remaining
unpaid after the time appointed for the payment of the same.” Shnier v. Valberg, 1941 OK 59, ¶ 9, 110 P.2d 593, 595.
The statutory sections in title 68 dealing with the collection of delinquent taxes refer interchangeably to tax sales and
resales. Following a legislative overhaul in 2008, Oklahoma has only “a single sale for delinquent taxes which the
Legislature has elected to term a ‘resale.’” Chisholm Trail Constr., L.L.C. v. Mueggeburg, 2014 OK CIV APP 108, ¶
20, 352 P.3d 1262, 1265; see also 2017 OK AG 17, ¶ 4 n.1. For consistency, this opinion uses the term “tax sale.”
1

Oklahoma has not been alone in shortening the time for owners to assert their rights to claim remaining
excess proceeds from sales of property to satisfy unpaid taxes. See, e.g., Franks v. Woodville Indep. Sch. Dist., 132
2

The Honorable Kendal Sacchieri
Oklahoma State Senate, District 43

A.G. Opinion
Page 3

3. The Legislature again amended section 3131(D) in 2014 by inserting the following provision
   limiting assignment of the right to excess proceeds: “No assignment of this right to excess proceeds
   shall be valid which occurs on or after the date on which the county resale began.” 2014 Okla.
   Sess. Laws ch. 156, § 2.
   Lastly, legislative amendments to sections 3131(C) and (D) in 2023 have set out a multi-step
   procedure that county treasurers must follow when a tax sale results in a surplus that exceeds the
   debt owed. 2023 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 113, § 12. First, the county treasurer notifies the OTC of
   the excess within thirty days. See 68 O.S.Supp.2023, § 3131(C). Following that, the OTC has sixty
   days to “provide notice to the county treasurer of any outstanding tax liabilities, including tax,
   penalty and interest, attached to each tract or lot of land.” Id. § 3131(D). Then, “[u]pon timely
   notice of a liability from the [OTC], the county treasurer shall remit to the [OTC] the amount of
   the outstanding tax liabilities or the excess proceeds, whichever is less.” Id.
   III.
   DISCUSSION
   A.

Section 3131(D)’s one-year requirement for collecting excess proceeds does not
deprive a delinquent taxpayer of property without just compensation.

This opinion begins and ends with the principle that a government cannot take more property from
a taxpayer than it is owed. At the same time, the vindication of even the most important rights
demands diligence from the person who wishes to assert them. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court
unanimously struck down as violative of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause a Minnesota law
that gave “[t]he former owner . . . no opportunity to recover th[e] surplus” after a forced sale for
unpaid taxes. Tyler v. Hennepin Cnty., 598 U.S. 631, 635 (2023); 3 see also id. at 634 (“Hennepin
County, Minnesota, sold Geraldine Tyler’s home for $40,000 to satisfy a $15,000 tax bill. Instead
of returning the remaining $25,000, the County kept it for itself.”). That egregious result would
not happen in Oklahoma because section 3131(D) mandates that any excess proceeds “shall be
held in the separate fund for the record owner of such land.” (Emphasis added). In other words,
Oklahoma does not and “could not use the toehold of the tax debt to confiscate more property than
was due.” Tyler, 598 U.S. at 639.
“The Takings Clause, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that
‘private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.’” Id. at 637
(quoting U.S. CONST. amend. V); see also OKLA. CONST. art. II, § 24 (“Private property shall not
be taken … for public use without just compensation.”). Property taxes “are not themselves a
taking, but are a mandated ‘contribution from individuals . . . for the support of the government . .
. for which they receive compensation in the protection which government affords.’” Tyler, 598
U.S. at 637 (quoting Cnty. of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U.S. 691, 703 (1881)). Oklahoma, like all
S.W.3d 167, 171 (Tex. App. 2004) (“In 1999, [Texas’s excess-proceeds statutes] were amended to alter the applicable
period from seven to two years.”).
Under the Minnesota statute held unconstitutional in Tyler, “any proceeds in excess of the tax debt and the
costs of the sale remain with the County, to be split between it, the town, and the school district.” 598 U.S. at 635.
That is, the State and its subdivisions kept all the money—a starkly different outcome from Oklahoma’s section 3131.
3

The Honorable Kendal Sacchieri
Oklahoma State Senate, District 43

A.G. Opinion
Page 4

States, “may . . . seize and sell property, including land, to recover the amount owed.” Id. at 638;
see also 68 O.S.Supp.2024, § 3105. But once the State recovers that amount owed, it may take
nothing more from the prior owner.
Your question suggests section 3131(D) undermines the right to excess proceeds by limiting how
long the taxpayer may delay in collecting them. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected this argument
in Nelson v. City of New York, 352 U.S. 103 (1956). 4 Under the ordinance challenged in Nelson,
“a property owner had almost two months after the city filed for foreclosure to pay off the tax debt,
and an additional 20 days to ask for the surplus from any tax sale.” Tyler, 598 U.S. at 644 (citing
Nelson, 352 U.S. at 104 n.1). “No property owner requested his surplus within the required time.”
Id. Nonetheless, the owners argued that “they had been denied just compensation under the
Takings Clause.” Id. Importantly, the New York City ordinance did not “absolutely preclude[] an
owner from obtaining the surplus proceeds of a judicial sale.” Nelson, 352 U.S. at 110. Instead, it
“simply defined the process through which the owner could claim the surplus.” Tyler, 598 U.S. at
644. And the “owners did not take advantage of this procedure, so they forfeited their right to the
surplus.” Id. Consequently, the Court “found no Takings Clause violation.” Id. (citing Nelson, 352
U.S. at 110).
The same principle applies to Oklahoma’s excess-proceeds statute. Consistent with the Supreme
Court’s holding in Nelson, the State may require some degree of diligence from the former
landowner. See Dani v. Miller, 2016 OK 35, ¶ 36, 374 P.3d 779, 794 (“The State is not required
to compensate a claimant for the consequences of their own neglect . . . .”). Here, the Legislature
has crafted a rational qualification on the exercise of a valuable, but not boundless, right. Many
other jurisdictions across the United States have enacted similar provisions mandating “the
performance of reasonable conditions” in collecting excess proceeds. 5 Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454
U.S. 516, 526 (1982). If former property owners contend that Oklahoma’s one-year limitation has
caused them adversity, then “relief from the hardship imposed by a state statute is the responsibility
of the state legislature.” Nelson, 352 U.S. at 111. As a result, section 3131(D) merely sets forth an
orderly procedure for collecting post-sale excess proceeds and does not violate the constitutional
guarantee against depriving a taxpayer of property without just compensation.

4
The main issue in Nelson turned on the adequacy of notice given to taxpayers before the start of foreclosure
proceedings. The Supreme Court held that New York City’s “application of the statute did not deprive appellants of
procedural due process.” Nelson, 352 U.S. at 109. The owners in Nelson raised the Takings Clause argument for the
first time in their reply brief, and the Court “rejected this belated argument.” Tyler, 598 U.S. at 644 (citing Nelson,
352 U.S. at 109). In Tyler, the Court squarely addressed a timely Takings Clause challenge while also affirming the
soundness of its prior reasoning in Nelson. See Tyler, 598 U.S. at 643–45.

See, e.g., ALASKA STAT. § 29.45.480(b) (six months); ARK. CODE ANN. § 26-37-205(c) (two years); CONN.
GEN. STAT. § 12-157(i)(2) (90 days); GA. CODE ANN. § 48-4-5(c) (five years); IDAHO CODE § 31-808(2)(c) (60 days);
IND. CODE § 6-1.1-24-7(e)(2) (three years); KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 91.517(3) (two years); MISS. CODE ANN. § 27-4177 (two years); NEV. REV. STAT. § 361.610(4) (one year); N.M. STAT. ANN. § 7-38-71(C) (two years); N.D. CENT.
CODE § 57-28-20(3)(a) (90 days); R.I. GEN. LAWS § 44-9-37 (five years); TEX. TAX CODE ANN. § 34.04(a) (two years);
VA. CODE ANN. § 58.1-3967 (two years); WASH. REV. CODE § 84.64.080(10) (three years); W. VA. CODE § 11A-3-65
(two years); WIS. STAT. § 75.36(2m)(b) (one year); WYO. STAT. ANN. § 39-13-108(d)(iv)(C) (two years).
5

The Honorable Kendal Sacchieri
Oklahoma State Senate, District 43

B.

A.G. Opinion
Page 5

Section 3131(D)’s limited restriction on a property owner’s assignment of the right to
excess proceeds once the tax sale has begun is not an unconstitutional taking.

Next, you ask whether Oklahoma may prevent property owners from assigning their right to excess
proceeds in limited circumstances without violating the Takings Clause. Again, the answer is yes.
“An assignment is the expressed intent of one party to pass rights owned to another.” In re
Kaufman, 2001 OK 88, ¶ 8, 37 P.3d 845, 850. With the Legislature’s 2014 amendment, Oklahoma
property owners may no longer assign their surplus rights to third parties “on or after the date on
which the county resale beg[ins],” although pre-sale assignments remain unaffected. 6 68 O.S.2021,
§ 3131(D). In short, Oklahoma restricts when the assignment may occur, not whether it may occur.
In a “classic taking,” “the government directly appropriates private property for its use.” Tahoe–
Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 324 (citation modified).
The Fifth Amendment (complemented by the Oklahoma Constitution’s article II, section 24)
promises to the taxpayer “an opportunity to recover the excess value” from the State. Tyler, 598
U.S. at 645. Oklahoma provides that opportunity through section 3131(D). But this guarantee
plainly does not extend to every conceivable use or design that the owner might later wish for
those same funds. “[A] mere unilateral expectation or an abstract need is not a property interest
entitled to protection” in the constitutional sense. Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith,
449 U.S. 155, 161 (1980). The Legislature’s partial limitation on the assignment of proceeds does
not “avoid paying just compensation” to the taxpayer. Tyler, 598 U.S. at 645. For that reason,
section 3131(D)’s non-assignment provision is not an unconstitutional taking.
C.

Because section 3131(D) makes the county treasurer responsible for remitting
payments to the OTC once the subject property is sold, the owner does not bear the
burden of accruing interest and penalties on additional outstanding tax liabilities.

Finally, you ask whether additional interest and penalties will stop accruing on an owner’s
outstanding post-sale tax liabilities where the county treasurer fails to transmit funds after
receiving notice from the OTC. The answer is yes. To recap, section 3131 requires county
treasurers to inform the OTC once any property “sells for more than the taxes, penalties, interest
and cost due thereon”—that is, whenever excess proceeds remain after the tax sale. 68
O.S.Supp.2023, § 3131(C). The OTC must then ascertain whether any other tax liens exist on the
delinquent taxpayer’s property. Id. § 3131(D). Following that determination, the county treasurer
“shall remit” payment to the OTC, if necessary, from the available excess funds. Id.
“The taking of taxes, or the taxpayer’s property for taxes, is an involuntary exaction by the state,
and the tax-gathering authorities must stay strictly within the provisions of the law authorizing the
collecting of such taxes or the taking of such property.” Sherrill v. Deisenroth, 1975 OK 136, ¶
22, 541 P.2d 862, 866 (quotation omitted). Oklahoma courts strictly construe the delinquent-tax
statutes. See Trappe v. Freeborn, 1955 OK 259, ¶ 17, 288 P.2d 1105, 1107 (per curiam) (“This
6
Granted, the property owner will not know whether any excess proceeds will exist before the tax sale occurs.
In this sense, the record owner can truly “assign” only the prospect of becoming entitled to a right in the excess
proceeds, if any. Even so, the Legislature regards—to some degree—the right to excess proceeds as an “assignable
legal right.” Johnson v. CSAA Gen. Ins. Co., 2020 OK 110, ¶ 12 & n.12, 478 P.3d 422, 427 & 427 n.12 (describing a
“chose in action,” such as a future interest in obtaining proceeds, as an assignable interest).

The Honorable Kendal Sacchieri
Oklahoma State Senate, District 43

A.G. Opinion
Page 6

Court has held many times the doctrine of strictissimi juris prevails in this jurisdiction and is
applicable to tax resales.”); 7 see also Sherrill, 1975 OK 136, ¶ 22, 541 P.2d at 867 (quotation
omitted) (“Nothing is to be indulged in [the tax-gathering authorities’] favor . . . .”). Section
3131(D) puts an affirmative duty on county treasurers—not on taxpayers—to send timely payment
to the OTC to discharge any remaining tax liens once the sale of the subject property is completed.
To be clear, the former owner may remain responsible for additional unpaid tax liabilities after the
property is sold (as may be ultimately determined by the OTC). It would be manifestly unfair to
allow interest and penalties to accrue on that debt solely because of the county treasurer’s inaction
in the face of a clear statutory duty. Simply stated, Oklahoma law will not penalize the taxpayer
for a government official’s failure to timely transmit funds.
It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the Attorney General that:
1. Title 68, section 3131(D) of the Oklahoma Statutes does not violate the U.S
Constitution or Oklahoma Constitution by requiring property owners to
claim excess proceeds from a tax sale within one year.
2. Title 68, section 3131(D) of the Oklahoma Statutes does not violate the
U.S. Constitution or Oklahoma Constitution by limiting property owners
from assigning their right to excess proceeds to third parties after
commencement of the tax sale.
3. Title 68, section 3131(D) of the Oklahoma Statutes requires county
treasurers to remit excess proceeds to the Oklahoma Tax Commission
when necessary to satisfy additional outstanding tax liens on the subject
property. Accordingly, a taxpayer will not bear the burden of accruing
interest and penalties on those outstanding tax liabilities after the county
sells the property.

GENTNER DRUMMOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA

CULLEN D. SWEENEY
ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

Strictissimi juris, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024) (“Of the strictest right or law; to be interpreted
in the strictest manner.”).
7