[WSBARP] Boundary Line Agreement - issues with title

Thu Jan 12 16:16:45 PST 2023

You’re right that a municipality cannot outright prohibit or restrict use of the BLA statute in appropriate situations.  But if you are arguing that a municipality cannot require pre-recording review of a BLA to determine whether the statute applies, that would be incorrect.  Please see the portion of the AGO that I quoted.  If a municipality has an ordinance requiring review before recording, the municipality would be the one to determine whether the statute applies, not a party’s lawyer or surveyor.

Sean

Sean Holland
VP | Underwriting Counsel
Washington & Montana
Fidelity National Title Group
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700
Seattle, Washington 98104
Mobile:  206-308-6823
Sean.Holland at fnf.com<mailto:Sean.Holland at fnf.com>

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Gregory L. Ursich
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 3:45 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Boundary Line Agreement - issues with title

IMPORTANT NOTICE - This message sourced from an external mail server outside of the Company.
And Sean: that opinion does not allow local governments to prohibit or restrict the use of the BLA statute, when it clearly applies to a situation. -Greg

[Logo, company name  Description automatically generated]
Gregory L. Ursich | Shareholder
Skyline Tower, Suite 1500 | 10900 NE 4th Street | Bellevue, WA 98004
P: 425.450.4258 | F: 425.635.7720
vCard<mailto:http://www.insleebest.com/uploads/vcards/gursich.vcf> | website<mailto:www.insleebest.com> | gursich at insleebest.com<mailto:gursich at insleebest.com>

This electronic mail transmission is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed.  If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender.  Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege.

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 Holland, Sean
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 12:02 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Boundary Line Agreement - issues with title

This message was sent securely using Zix®<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zixcorp.com%2Fget-started&data=05%7C01%7CSean.Holland%40fnf.com%7C60626be1f1374abe4fed08daf4f785dc%7C8a807b9b02da47f3a903791a42a2285c%7C0%7C0%7C638091641236321961%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8Ye6x1FelfHXj2gWba9cOjnIqYoKdcjCz6G5J%2FIFIhI%3D&reserved=0>

A 2005 Attorney General Opinion addresses appropriate and inappropriate uses of the statute and local authority.  https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/authority-county-impose-procedural-requirements-recording-property-boundary-disputes<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.atg.wa.gov%2Fago-opinions%2Fauthority-county-impose-procedural-requirements-recording-property-boundary-disputes&data=05%7C01%7CSean.Holland%40fnf.com%7C60626be1f1374abe4fed08daf4f785dc%7C8a807b9b02da47f3a903791a42a2285c%7C0%7C0%7C638091641236321961%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LsNJ35x6c7YhxUTxl%2Fjk4YqYY%2BSVUEAOmzeP28euWvM%3D&reserved=0>

Final paragraph of the AGO states as follows:

In our view, RCW 58.04.007 leaves room for local legislation, particularly legislation designed to implement the statute and facilitate its administration.  Since RCW 58.04.007 specifies only that the agreement be in written form, for instance, a charter county could enact requirements concerning the form of the written agreement (size of the document, what information it should contain, and where on the document each item should be located, etc.).  Insofar as an ordinance providing for pre-recording county review may be concerned, we simply note that counties would appear to have considerable leeway in this area so long as the local legislation does not contravene the statute itself.  For instance, an ordinance providing for review to determine whether a document presented for recording meets the requirements set forth in the statute (see discussion above) (or whether accepting a document for recording would be in conflict with some other state statute or state or local regulatory requirement[3]) would not necessarily be inconsistent with the statute.  At least where a county can show that its ordinance serves a legitimate purpose and does not frustrate or negate the application of RCW 58.04.007 or other statutes, we believe the ordinance would be upheld.

Sean Holland
VP | Underwriting Counsel
Washington & Montana
Fidelity National Title Group
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700
Seattle, Washington 98104
Mobile:  206-308-6823
Sean.Holland at fnf.com<mailto:Sean.Holland at fnf.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 Gregory L. Ursich
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 9:39 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Boundary Line Agreement - issues with title

IMPORTANT NOTICE - This message sourced from an external mail server outside of the Company.
Bryce is absolutely correct with his opinion and approach. -Greg
Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 12, 2023, at 9:32 AM, Bryce Dille <Bryce at dillelaw.com<mailto:Bryce at dillelaw.com>> 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

<image001.png>
** 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<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.fsr.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fwsbarp&data=05%7C01%7CSean.Holland%40fnf.com%7C60626be1f1374abe4fed08daf4f785dc%7C8a807b9b02da47f3a903791a42a2285c%7C0%7C0%7C638091641236321961%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ep44EqKRg3dllHue3cRmxH1MlX%2Fwf%2F%2B9VzQ9bFjvK3o%3D&reserved=0>
________________________________
NOTICE: The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified to: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was secured by Zix<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zixcorp.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7CSean.Holland%40fnf.com%7C60626be1f1374abe4fed08daf4f785dc%7C8a807b9b02da47f3a903791a42a2285c%7C0%7C0%7C638091641236321961%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FfCmRAJv6cgMKS9cc%2BkJ0y1Dqzb%2Bs2GrC4ly2rhofNo%3D&reserved=0>®.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message was secured by Zix(R).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230113/ddcff061/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 62307 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230113/ddcff061/image001.png>