Resolution Of Boundary Line Disputes
Boundary line disputes represent a highly common real property conflict in Washington. These disputes typically arise when the physical boundary line between adjoining parcels of land is uncertain, disputed, or inconsistent with public records, monuments, or landmarks. Washington law provides many statutory and common law frameworks for resolving these boundary disputes.
Statutory Boundary Resolution Framework.
Under Washington statutory law, when a boundary line or point cannot be identified from existing public records, landmarks, or monuments, or is actively in dispute, affected landowners may resolve the issue through one of two primary statutory pathways:
Written Agreement: If all affected landowners agree to a boundary line, they may document the agreement in a written instrument. RCW 58.04.007. This instrument must use appropriate legal descriptions, include a survey map, and be signed and acknowledged by each party in the same manner required for a conveyance of real property. To run with the land and bind successors, assigns, heirs, and devisees, the agreement must be recorded in the real estate records of the county or counties where the parcels are located.
Judicial Determination: If the affected landowners cannot agree, any one of them may bring a lawsuit in superior court to quiet title or obtain a judicial determination of the boundary line. RCW 58.04.007, RCW 7.28.010.
Common Law Methods of Resolving Boundary Disputes.
Washington courts recognize five distinct common law methods to resolve boundary disputes without executing formal, recorded documents:
Adverse Possession: A party may establish ownership of disputed property by proving concurrent possession that is: (1) exclusive, (2) actual and uninterrupted, (3) open and notorious, and (4) hostile and under a claim of right made in good faith. This possession must exist concurrently for a statutory period of 10 years.
Parol Agreement of Adjoining Landowners: Adjoining landowners may orally agree to fix a boundary line.
Estoppel in Pais: This is a common law doctrine used to prevent a party from asserting a boundary line contrary to their prior representations or conduct.
Location by a Common Grantor: This is a method resolving boundaries based on how a single original owner originally partitioned and designated the boundary lines on the ground.
Mutual Recognition and Acquiescence: This method uses recognition of a definite and specific line by the interested parties as the boundary for a long period of time.
Legal Requirements for Oral (Parol) Boundary Agreements.
To establish a binding oral agreement to fix a boundary line and circumvent the statute of frauds, a party must meet specific minimum criteria:
- There must be a bona fide dispute or uncertainty between coterminous property owners regarding where the common boundary lies on the ground.
- The owners must reach an express meeting of the minds to permanently and unconditionally resolve the uncertainty by recognizing a specific, definite line.
- The parties must physically designate the boundary on the ground, such as by erecting a visible post and wire fence or another structure capable of evoking inquiry as to its significance.
- The parties must take possession of their property up to that line via occupancy or improvements that reasonably provide constructive notice of the boundary location to successors in interest, or alternatively, subsequent bona fide purchasers for value must take with reference to that boundary.
The Doctrine of Adverse Possession.
To establish adverse possession, the claimant bears the burden of overcoming the legal presumption that possession remains with the holder of the legal title.
The element of “hostility” or “claim of right” is determined objectively; it requires only that the claimant treat the land as their own against the world throughout the statutory 10-year period. The subjective intent or beliefs of the parties—such as a prior owner expressing subjective uncertainty about the exact boundary location—are legally irrelevant to this determination.
Special statutory rules apply when an adverse possession claim involves “forestland” as defined under Washington law. RCW 7.28.085. In such cases, an adverse claimant is not deemed to have established the “open and notorious” element of possession unless they establish by clear and convincing evidence that they made or erected “substantial improvements” (defined as permanent or semi-permanent structures costing more than $50,000) that remained on the land for at least 10 years . RCW 7.28.085. This heightened standard does not apply if the owner of the forestland owns less than 20 acres, if the adverse claim was acquired prior to June 11, 1998, or if the claimant relied in good faith on boundary markers set by a registered land surveyor.
In conclusion, boundary disputes in Washington are governed by a mixture of statutory mechanisms for formal recordation or litigation, alongside traditional common law doctrines such as oral agreements and adverse possession. Resolving these disputes requires meeting precise evidentiary standards, particularly when parties attempt to establish boundaries contrary to deed descriptions through long-term use or physical demarcation.
The lawyers at Beresford Booth have extensive experience dealing with land use matters. Contact us at info@beresfordlaw.com or by phone at (425) 776-4100. to see how we can help you.