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

Mon Dec 7 11:35:21 PST 2020

I have a Short plat problem.. but it does involve a planning office.. so I stuck it on this tree.

The county planner wants client to do a short plat on the sale of a parcel which is under 20 acres. This is contiguous to other parcel (which is hundreds of acres) but these parcels were all surveyed and called “lots” year ago.  This is not a platted town area.. it is rural.  I assume a record of survey was recorded.  For some reason ? the county put the two parcels under one parcel number.  The planning office says “because it is in same parcel number you have to do a short plat”.  I would rather just get two parcel numbers issued. Thanks
Josh

Joshua F. Grant

P. O. Box 619
Wilbur, WA 99185
509 647 5578

From: rob at hctc.com 
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2020 11:20 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' 
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Quiet Title Action and Boundary Line AgreementsPursuant to RCW 58.04.007

  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

www.hossandwilson-hoss.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 <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>
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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***

_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20201207/154cb35e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: advocates[3].png
Type: image/png
Size: 7674 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20201207/154cb35e/advocates3.png>