[WSBARP] Boundary Line Agreement - issues with title

[Kary Krismer]

I would go so far as to say RCW 58.04.003 should prevail, but that 
statute requires a situation where the boundary cannot be determined or 
an actual dispute.  In the situation I mentioned earlier today the 
parties just wanted to change the boundary to have the lot lines better 
match up with the topography.

But regardless, if a title company has a policy of issuing an exception 
there's going to be a problem, unless you can convince the title company 
to change position and either every other title company also takes the 
same position or convince every future buyer/lender to use that title 
company (or they don't care about the exception).

I'd love to hear Dwight Bickel's position on this topic, so by "cc" I'm 
paging him.

Kary L. Krismer
206 723-2148

On 1/12/2023 9:28 AM, Bryce Dille wrote:
>
> I have done at least 20 of these is last several years in Pierce, 
> Kitsap and Thurston Counties and have never encountered this the only 
> time a county or city may object is if the parties are using this just 
> to do an boundry adjustment and not because there is a boundary line 
> issue like encroachment or fence lines off etc. but use it to avoid 
> the formal process that involves application and approval by 
> appropriate governmental agency. In my opinion the state statute (RCE 
> 58.04.007) trumps any ordinance or municipal code to the contrary
>
> Bryce H. Dille
>
> Dille Law, PLLC
>
> 2010 Caton Way SW Ste. 101
>
> Olympia, WA 98502
>
> Office: 360-350-0270
>
> Cell: 253-579-5561
>
> R_Alan_Swanson-WH-200
>
> ** Please note that I use the dictation feature of my iPhone and that 
> sometimes everything I say does not get properly translated**
>
> This transmission contains confidential attorney-client communications 
> and may not be disclosed to any person but the intended recipient(s).  
> If this matter is transmitted to you in error, please notify the 
> sender immediately.
>
> Business Entity Creation and Management, Business, Government and Tax 
> Law, Real Estate and Land Use, Residential, Commercial and Condominium 
> Development Real Estate and Commercial Transactions & Closings, 
> Including Performing Services as IRS Section 1031 Exchange Facilitator 
> Estate Planning, including Wills and Trusts, and Probate 
> Administration Representation Homeowners/Condominium Association Real 
> Estate Developments Real Property Foreclosures and Forfeitures.
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com 
> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Paul Okner
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 12, 2023 7:46 AM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* [WSBARP] Boundary Line Agreement - issues with title
>
> Dear boundary line gurus,
>
> To resolve a boundary dispute, two neighboring parcels (in Seattle) 
> have agreed to enter into a Boundary Line Agreement pursuant to RCW 
> 58.04.007. However, we're getting pushback from Chicago Title.  Their 
> latest response is pasted in below.  Any thoughts on how to get this 
> across the finish line?
>
> Unfortunately we have not had luck with the procedure [party's] 
> attorney is suggesting. In reviewing with underwriting counsel here, 
> we acknowledge that a Boundary Line Agreement is an option to resolve 
> boundary line disputes or discrepancies under RCW 58.04.007. However, 
> in our experience, King County will likely assert their formal 
> boundary line adjustment administrative review process needs to be 
> followed, too. Presumptively, the City of Seattle would take the same 
> stance. It’s likely building and repair permits would be denied in the 
> future if they don’t obtain city approval. Also, the county assessor 
> might decline to change the tax roll to match the new boundaries.
>
> You could proceed with the proposed approach, but we would need to 
> raise an exception from coverage for potential violation of 
> subdivision regulations. This exception could cause issues with the 
> lender and future purchasers, so underwriting counsel does not 
> recommend this course of action.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> -Paul Okner
>
> *Fremont Law PLLC*
>
> 3429 Fremont Pl. N.,  Suite 305
>
> Seattle, WA 98103
>
> (206) 399 - 1922
>
>
> ***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/20230112/3f54223a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8651 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230112/3f54223a/image001.png>