[WSBARP] Interaction of vacated road, adverse possession, Assessor hijinks

Fri Oct 31 11:04:25 PDT 2014

Technically, as I understand it, title to adversely possessed property passes upon expiration of the relevant time period. The judgment of vacation "merely" confirms the title that has already passed.   If the referenced portion of the vacated street was adversely possessed, it should be considered as having passed to the possessor, subject to confirmation by the appropriate judicial authority.
Perhaps it would make sense to go into the appropriate court to have the vacation judgment modified to include the vacated street?

John McCrady
Counsel
Puget Sound Title Company
5350 Orchard Street West
University Place WA 98466
253-476-5721

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 10:24 AM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Interaction of vacated road, adverse possession, Assessor hijinks

Steve and Rebecca--Thanks for responding to this 'way back when in the old days of the previous listserve (and many thanks to Doug and everybody who works to keep this listserv running!). To clarify the situation--

B3 just wants to quitclaim the "chimney" to A3 since it matches up to A3's property anyway. It's the part of the vacated road that was already (in 1982) attached by law to the lot portion that was adversely possessed in 1998, but the road wasn't mentioned in the adverse possession lawsuit.
[cid:image001.jpg at 01CFF4FA.6E9DF240]

I know the Assessor's map isn't meaningful in a title sense, but it is meaningful for other purposes since a tax parcel (these days) is typically a legal lot for building purposes, and changing boundary lines can be an expensive process. If B3 can just do the quitclaim and be done with it, everybody's happy. I just want the Assessor to be happy too, and be willing to finally correct the record to show the vacated road as properly attached to the lots, without having to do a formal BLA because nobody's trying to accomplish anything other than square up the vacated road to the property it was supposed to attach to anyway. My thought is, if the Assessor is good with it, the marketability of the lot won't become an issue. And since we're adding land to these parcels, the usual BLA concerns about having a too-small unbuildable lot aren't an issue either.

I've heard from others that I should just talk to the Assessor, so I'll probably do that. But I wanted to hear from others about what they might have encountered.

Thanks!

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1320 University St
Seattle WA  98101-2837
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040

From: wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of swhite8893 at aol.com<mailto:swhite8893 at aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:46 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Interaction of vacated road, adverse possession, Assessor hijinks

Eric,
     Let's clear up a few things that may be helpful.
     The assessor's map has no legal effect, although it does have the potential to create confusion. The map is only their opinion. They have no authority to decide where boundaries are and are not.
     Unless there is a clear indication to the contrary, A and B and their successors always owned to the center of the road. The county, prior to the vacation, only had a right of way. In doing the vacation, the county terminated their right of way. It had no other effect on title. Keep in mind, that any other property which bought in relationship to that plat, or whatever it is, still may well have a private easement over the road(if no one is using it, make sure the client blocks it).
     Any transfers of the lots included the adjoining county road, even if not stating so explicitly.
     The transfer of the county road from B1 to B3 has no effect on the AP claim to the chimney if, in fact, parcel A has vested because of AP. B3 transferring the chimney to A3 confuses me. If they are resolving that part of the line, why don't they resolve the whole line by a BLA. Why would they clear up the chimney and not the rest? The transfer by way of quitclaim deed would violate the platting statutes in any event.
     I know this adds a bit to the expense. However, both parties need to understand that for the most part, until the line issue is resolved, their properties are unmarketable, assuming a properly filled out Form 17 would kill any deal.
     Being too accommodating to clients who want to take the cheap, easy, route is, to me, almost always a mistake. I know it can sometimes make clients unhappy when you tell them what to do, but our job is to advise them as to what is in their best interests.

Steve

Stephen Whitehouse
Whitehouse & Nichols, LLP
Attorneys at Law
P.O. Box 1273
601 W. Railroad Ave.
Shelton, Wa. 98584
360-426-5885
swhite8893 at aol.com<mailto:swhite8893 at aol.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Nelsen <Eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:Eric at sayrelawoffices.com>>
To: WSBA Real Property listserve (wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>) <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Sent: Tue, Oct 28, 2014 12:28 pm
Subject: [WSBARP] Interaction of vacated road, adverse possession, Assessor hijinks
All right, I've tried the King County lawyers' listserve and nobody responded. Anyone up to offer an opinion on whether we have to go through a BLA in the below scenario, where we're just trying to attach a vacated road to the proper parcel?

Facts:
1980. Two neighbors, A1 and B1, own adjoining properties, Parcel A is north of Parcel B. Along the west side of their properties is a County road.
1982. County road is vacated, but the Assessor's map is not changed to show it. The adjacent part of the road attaches by law to Parcel A and Parcel B.
1984. A1 sells to A2, and B1 sells to B2, but neither deed includes the vacated road.
1998. A2 adversely possesses against B2 for the northern part of Parcel B, essentially moving the boundary between Parcel A and Parcel B about 10' to the south. (Note that the adverse possession was between two parties who did not have title of record to the vacated road, and the vacated road was not part of the judgment moving the boundary line.)
2002. A2 sells to A3, and B2 sells to B3. Still no one mentions the vacated road. The Assessor's map still shows the road as public.
2012. A3 gets a QCD from A1 for the vacated road, to catch up ownership of the vacated portion with the "old" Parcel A, pre-adverse possession. B3 does the same, gets a QCD from B1 for "old" Parcel B's vacated road.
So now, A3 and B3 each has a QCD for the vacated road that attached by operation of law before the adverse possession, giving B3 a 10' tall "chimney" of vacated road projecting north from the B parcel.
B3 plans to quitclaim the "chimney" to A3, to match up the existing boundary. A3 would win on adverse possession if it came to a dispute anyway. And even now, 30+ years after the road was vacated, the Assessor's map still shows the road as public.
Gad. This is in King County. Can B3 transfer the 10-foot "chimney" of vacated road with a quitclaim deed and a note to the Assessor? Or do we need a BLA and/or a friendly quiet title action? Is there an argument that can be made to the County that all we're doing is attaching vacated road to areas to which it attached by law in any event?
Needless to say, the parties are looking for the easiest and cheapest solution, and feel (somewhat justifiably, I think), that the adjustment ought to be allowed by the County without making a fuss about a BLA, because nothing is really being accomplished other than catching up the public record with the operation of law on the vacated road.
Thanks in advance for advice, comments, wisecracks and wisdom.

Sincerely,
Eric
Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1320 University St
Seattle WA  98101-2837
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040
===============================
- To contact the list administrator, send a message to: webmaster at wsbarppt.com<mailto:webmaster at wsbarppt.com>

- To unsubscribe, send a new message to: imail at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:imail at lists.wsbarppt.com>, with the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe wsbarp - OR - send a message to webmaster at wsbarppt.com<mailto:webmaster at wsbarppt.com> asking that you be removed from the wsbarp list.
Information provided on this list should not be considered legal advice. As with all lists - let the reader beware! No warranties or representations are made as to the accuracy of any information provided. All opinions and comments in this message represent the views of the author and do not necessarily have the endorsement of the Washington State Bar Association nor its officers or agents.
===============================
- To contact the list administrator, send a message to: webmaster at wsbarppt.com<mailto:webmaster at wsbarppt.com>

- To unsubscribe, send a new message to: imail at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:imail at lists.wsbarppt.com>, with the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe wsbarp - OR - send a message to webmaster at wsbarppt.com<mailto:webmaster at wsbarppt.com> asking that you be removed from the wsbarp list.

Information provided on this list should not be considered legal advice. As with all lists - let the reader beware! No warranties or representations are made as to the accuracy of any information provided. All opinions and comments in this message represent the views of the author and do not necessarily have the endorsement of the Washington State Bar Association nor its officers or agents.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20141031/86bff323/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 24112 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20141031/86bff323/image001-0001.jpg>