[WSBARP] House Constructed Over Lot Line

Fri Aug 19 14:14:45 PDT 2022

The correct solution is a boundary line adjustment of the lots. This goes through the City or County. A permanent building needs a boundary change. You can be creative with drawing a new lot line to keep the lots almost the same size. An easement should not be used for a permanent building. That would cause marketability problems later and lending problems as well. -Greg Ursich, Inslee Best

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 19, 2022, at 1:54 PM, Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com> wrote:

Real estate developers record easements all of the time when they own multiple properties.  They have to have a subdivision’s easements and roads in place before they sell the first lot.  I have seen the following language inserted into the document:

“FURTHER, it is stated that the unity of right, title and interest to Lot 10, Lot 11, and Lot 13 shall not affect these easement provisions and the same shall run with the land until such time as this easement is terminated according to the terms herein. As stated, this Declaration is expressly made to establish the stated easement, and is intended to apply to the lots described herein without operation of merger, despite the fact that Declarant currently owns all three lots.”

This language was used by a real property attorney who owned the local branch to a statewide title insurance company.  I have used this language many many times but to be honest, I don’t know if it has been tested in court.

[image001.jpg]

IMPORTANT NOTICE:  This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of Paul A. Neumiller presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; e-mail messages to non-clients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless you are the intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it back to the sender and delete it completely from your computer system.

E-mail communication on the Internet may NOT be secure. There is a risk that this confidential communication may be intercepted illegally. There may also be a risk of waiving attorney-client and/or work-product privileges that may attach to this communication. DO NOT forward this message to a third party. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact the sender.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Rich Holland
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 1:20 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] House Constructed Over Lot Line

I do not know about a change in case law.  In situations like this, I would have the client put one of the properties into a sole purpose LLC first I think by qcd to avoid it as a potential issue

Rich on his phone
________________________________
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 David <dpw at thewilliamslawfirm.com<mailto:dpw at thewilliamslawfirm.com>>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 12:58:57 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] House Constructed Over Lot Line

Listmates—a few days ago there was a post about an property owner who owned three contiguous lots who built his house on Lot B that extended 10 feet into Lot C. The consensus of how to deal with that issue was for the owner to grant an easement on Lot C for the benefit of Lot B. That was my thought as well.
Later, I recalled something for Stoebuck’s Washington Practice where he states that an easement appurtenant “implies at least two parcels of land…and these parcels must be in separate ownership; one person who owns two separate parcels of land cannot have an easement across one that serves the other.” He cites a 1918 case.102 Washi. 608, 173 P. 508.
Is the solution to clearly make the easement “in gross” or has there been a case that reverses the 1918 result?

***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<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.fsr.com_mailman_listinfo_wsbarp&d=DwIGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=hDHe9lm5VBA9VXO3e3szRw&m=15BjSIG6VyxBjZpvF0xEaJk0HG3DQoetT02BRx6Pf7c&s=7TF29DXZf6oFp0rAedTWhYnoavMYustaPeiiMlvoO0A&e=<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__mailman.fsr.com_mailman_listinfo_wsbarp%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DeuGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM%26r%3DhDHe9lm5VBA9VXO3e3szRw%26m%3D15BjSIG6VyxBjZpvF0xEaJk0HG3DQoetT02BRx6Pf7c%26s%3D7TF29DXZf6oFp0rAedTWhYnoavMYustaPeiiMlvoO0A%26e%3D&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cc332ecedbbbc4c6fed2608da8220b1a6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637965374222867058%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rTs47VzLxodQ29fRvmoRIuhkcW8viIkKMtuL8H356Ps%3D&reserved=0>
***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/20220819/49913dad/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14264 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220819/49913dad/image001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14264 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220819/49913dad/image001-0001.jpg>