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

Tue Dec 8 15:21:57 PST 2020

Can you share the opinion?

*/Ms. Shaun Watchie Perry | Attorney at Law
Law Office of Shaun Watchie Perry
1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 940 | Seattle, WA 98101
Tel +206.729.7442 | Fax + 206.260.1411 | www.swp-law.com/*

This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to 
whom it is addressed and may contain confidential, privileged 
information. If the reader of this e-mail is not the addressee, please 
be advised that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this 
e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in 
error, please call immediately 206-729-7442 and return this e-mail to 
the above e-mail address and delete from your files.

On 12/8/2020 3:09 PM, rob at hctc.com wrote:
>
> And, serendipitously, see, Pokorny v. Judd, today’s date, unpub, at 
> around page 19.
>
> Robert D. Wilson-Hoss
>
> Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP
>
> 236 West Birch Street
>
> Shelton, WA 98584
>
> 360 426-2999
>
> www.hossandwilson-hoss.com <http://www.hossandwilson-hoss.com>
>
> rob at hctc.com <mailto:rob at hctc.com>
>
> *From:* rob at hctc.com <rob at hctc.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, December 7, 2020 11:20 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
>
>  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 <http://www.hossandwilson-hoss.com>
>
> rob at hctc.com <mailto:rob at hctc.com>
>
> *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 *Rob Bartlett
> *Sent:* Monday, December 7, 2020 9:56 AM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com 
> <mailto: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
>
>
> ***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/20201208/26e34226/attachment.html>