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

Fri Oct 31 11:13:35 PDT 2014

Some years back I had a King County case where there was a vacated road and
an AP issue on the sideline boundary in the vacated road, very similar to
what you show below. In my case the primary issue was how the sideline
projected into the road area. I learned that there is an assessor's manual
on projecting sidelines, and that it is not identical to the "do equity"
guideline in Washington caselaw on projecting boundaries into vacated areas.
In my case the original back lot lines were at an angle, and in your case
the AP means you end up with an angle in the mix. I'd go talk to the
assessor, including proposing the quit claim. Then, if either party is
considering doing any construction in the near future where this segment of
boundary line is essential, I'd consider doing a stipulated quiet title or a
BLA, but not until after I'd tried to talk my way through permitting based
on the assessor having already delineated the boundary. 

Rebecca K. Wiess

Attorney at Law

421 24th Avenue East

Seattle, WA  98112

Phone 206 622-4425

Fax 206 622-9021

rwiess at foxinternet.net 

  _____  

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.

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] On Behalf Of swhite8893 at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:46 PM
To: 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

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Nelsen <Eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
To: WSBA Real Property listserve (wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com)
<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 

- To unsubscribe, send a new message to: 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 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 

- To unsubscribe, send a new message to: 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 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/bc5ab5be/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 24112 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20141031/bc5ab5be/image001-0001.jpg>