[WSBARP] Quiet Title Action and Boundary Line Agreements Pursuant to RCW 58.04.007

Mon Dec 7 11:20:18 PST 2020

1.	There is an old AG opinion, AGO 2005 no. 2, March 7, 2005,  that
says that cities and counties can review these agreements. It is wrong, in
my opinion. Regardless, many municipalities do make some sort of agreement
requirements, but they are very inconsistent.
2.	Any agreement will leave you with the need to still require with
density and other planning requirements such as set backs when approval is
sought for a project in the future on both lots.  Lawyers should screen for
these issues.
3.	An interesting question is, if we start with a nonconforming use
(small lot size in development pre-existing minimum lot size regulations,
for example), and then we shrink that lot size by another amount based on a
boundary line agreement, are we now in a place where we are violating
minimum lot sizes, and future project approvals will be impacted?
4.	If your agency with authority insists, and you don't want to deal
with them (some of them charge outrageous amounts for the process of
approving these), then perhaps a friendly lawsuit, and name the city or
county as a defendant. Probably cheaper and more in your control than the
permitting process in some places. And you may not even need a survey if you
can accurately describe where the new line is.
5.	If they appear and want to argue, then they have to show that they
have some sort of interest in the matter. I don't think they can do that. 

	Rob

	Robert D. Wilson-Hoss

	Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP

	236 West Birch Street

	Shelton, WA 98584

	360 426-2999

	 <http://www.hossandwilson-hoss.com> www.hossandwilson-hoss.com

	 <mailto:rob at hctc.com> rob at hctc.com

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
On Behalf Of Rob Bartlett
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 9:56 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Quiet Title Action and Boundary Line Agreements
Pursuant to RCW 58.04.007

We have run into this as well.  On at least on occasion notifying the City
it would need to be made a party to the quiet title litigation made it back
off.  But, it was clear it was going to take this heavy-handed action in the
future.  Have you threated to make the city a party to the quiet title
action?  And if so, what was its response?

We'd all like to know.

--Rob

Everyone at Cook & Bartlett is available to assist you during the COVID-19
outbreak.  We are keeping our operations as normal as possible, while
practicing social distancing.  We are monitoring our emails and phone calls,
but might be delayed in responding.  Please let us know how we can assist
you, and we will get back to you as soon as possible. 

Robert M. Bartlett, Esq.
Cook & Bartlett, PLLC
1900 W. Nickerson St., Ste. 215
Seattle, WA 98119
(206) 282-2710
Fax: (206) 282-2707

The information contained in this e-mail and in any attached document(s) is
CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by attorney-client privilege and/or the
work-product doctrine.   The e-mail (and attached document(s)) is intended
only for use by the person(s) to whom this e-mail is addressed.  If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or other use of such e-mail and/or document(s) is
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail and/or any attached
document(s) in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at (206)
282-2710.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
<wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> > On Behalf Of Terrance Wilson
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 9:19 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> >
Subject: [WSBARP] Quiet Title Action and Boundary Line Agreements Pursuant
to RCW 58.04.007

Good Morning Colleagues,

I have been working with Adverse Possession Quiet Title cases and Boundary
Line Agreements pursuant to RCW 58.04.007 since the mid 1990's, originally
in the capacity as the owner of a Land Surveying busines, and since 2005 as
a Real Estate attorney.  I have worked on cases with some of you on this
listserv.  Over the years, different jurisdictions have pushed back on the
use of Boundary Line Agreements, and also threatened whether they would
recognize the reconfigured lot lines from either process if the properties
did not also go through the Lot Boundary Adjustment process with the
jurisdiction.  

Currently, I am working with City of Seattle Legal (Patrick Downs) and SDCI
Planning Staff to delineate their policy on this matter. They are
threatening to require all properties that have been reconfigured via Quiet
Title Actions and Boundary Line Agreements to additionally be subjected to
the City's Lot Boundary Adjustment process in order to be recognized.  

This proposed policy is absurd.  Apart from the fact that future owners who
have relied upon the Quiet Title Action Judgments and/or Boundary Line
Agreements will not be willing to work together on a Lot Boundary Adjustment
process, I believe the City's proposal to require such action exceeds their
authority.

Mr. Downs has asked me for any appellate decisions that would preclude the
City from requiring a Lot Boundary Adjustment under these circumstances.  I
am not sure if there are any cases on point, but the idea that the City
could deny recognition of lot boundaries that have been properly
reconfigured via the Quiet Title of Boundary Line Agreement process seems an
overreach and impractical as well. 

Does anyone have experience with the City of Seattle in this area?  Also,
any ideas for a response to Mr. Downs regarding the City's proposed denial
of lots that have been adjusted by these methods would be appreciated. I
feel the consequences of the City's policy in this matter will have far
reaching ramifications for many of us who practice in this area. 

Best regards, 

Terrance Randall Wilson, Managing Partner

Attorney at Law

Wilson Law Group of WA

(206) 550-3189 - Cell

(206) 805-6238 - Office

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20201207/4c0e3cf3/attachment.html>