<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Arial Narrow";
panose-1:2 11 6 6 2 2 2 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Good to know, Greg. My gut tells me that if someone asks the powers that be in Seattle and King County, their default response is to say that the individuals need to go through their review process but if you just proceed under RCW 58.04.007, they have no real basis to reject or deny. Someone needs to set Chicago Title straight on the issue though. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sam<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Samuel M. Meyler</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Meyler Legal, PLLC </span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>1700 Westlake Ave. N., Ste. 200<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Seattle, Washington 98109</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Tel:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'> 206.876.7770<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Fax:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'> 206.876.7771<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Email:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'> </span><a href="mailto:samuel@meylerlegal.com"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>samuel@meylerlegal.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>NOTICE:</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>This electronic message contains information which may be Confidential or Privileged and constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 USC 2510. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender and delete the copy you received together with any attachments. Thank you.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Gregory L. Ursich<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 12, 2023 8:38 AM<br><b>To:</b> WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBARP] Boundary Line Agreement - issues with title<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Paul: Call me about this. The advice given below through Chicago Title, is legally and factually incorrect. <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'> I am hired regularly by Chicago Title since 1995 to resolve title claims, including boundary disputes. We often use a boundary line agreement under RCW 58.04.007, including in King County and in Seattle to resolve these. In over 25 years of doing these in Seattle and King County I have never once have one come back to “bite me” in Seattle or King County. They create insurable title and are absolutely legal and enforceable. What you got back ( and I do not know who at Chicago Title said this, but it is wrong and no violation of subdivision statutes exist since the BLA is a statute itself) is just not correct or supported by any law in the state of Washington. My office number is 425-450-4258. Please call me and I can further explain. -Greg Ursich, Inslee Best<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Sent from my iPhone<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>On Jan 12, 2023, at 7:50 AM, Paul Okner <<a href="mailto:paul@fremontlawgroup.com">paul@fremontlawgroup.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Dear boundary line gurus,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Many thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>-Paul Okner<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Arial Narrow",sans-serif'>Fremont Law PLLC</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial Narrow",sans-serif'>3429 Fremont Pl. N., Suite 305</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial Narrow",sans-serif'>Seattle, WA 98103</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial Narrow",sans-serif'>(206) 399 - 1922</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal>***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.***<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>WSBARP mailing list<br><a href="mailto:WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com">WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp">http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>