Easement vs. Property Line Adjustment

[glucas]

I am working thru a property line dispute with a neighbor. We agreed to trade some areas of our properties. His lawyer is proposing an easement instead of a property line adjustment (the state reason is it will be cheaper). They say they can make the easement functionally the same as a property line adjustment.

They have not shared the easement language yet, but can be an easement (they only type I heard mention has been access easement) functionally the same as a owning the area outright?

 

[quincy]

WA

More information would be helpful.

 

[glucas]

Made the edit!

 

[quincy]

I am working thru a property line dispute with a neighbor. We agreed to trade some areas of our properties. His lawyer is proposing an easement instead of a property line adjustment. Their reason is they say they can make the easement functionally the same as a property line adjustment. They have not shared the easement language, but I dont see how any easement can be functionally the same as a owning the area outright. Is this a correct assumption to make and should I continue to push for the PLA?

A property line adjustment would appear to be better for you and your neighbor than an easement.

Why was an easement suggested?

 

[glucas]

They said it would be a cheaper resolution (they said real estate excise tax, but I dont think it applies to WA) - certainly a permit fee will apply

 

[quincy]

Here is a link to the law (my previous attempts failed ):

https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=458-61A-109

An excise tax will apply in some but not all cases.

 

[adjusterjack]

A property line adjustment involves one of you deeding part of your property to the other. Essentially subdividing one property, changing the legal description of both properties and recording the changes. If the ceding owner has a mortgage that's going to be problematic with the mortgage company losing part of its security.

I'm guessing that lawyer fees alone to do all that would be considerably more than just creating a mutual easement. On top of that, you'd probably have fees to the county. In that sense, yes, it would be cheaper to go the easement route.

Whose lawyer is doing the work? Yours or the neighbor's?

 

[glucas]

Neighbors lawyer is doing the work.

I have a mortgage but they didnt seem to mind since I was getting the same area of property in exchange. (one-for-one area swap).

 

[quincy]

Neighbors lawyer is doing the work.

I have a mortgage but they didnt seem to mind since I was getting the same area of property in exchange. (one-for-one area swap).

If your mortgage lender has no problem with the change in the property line, it appears that the major issue is cost and what you and your neighbor are comfortable paying to settle the property line dispute. I am not seeing much of an advantage to an easement.

 

[adjusterjack]

Neighbors lawyer is doing the work.

Neighbor's lawyer is representing the neighbor, not you.

You should have your own lawyer involved to protect your interests.

 

[quincy]

I agree with adjusterjack that having your own lawyer personally review any agreement you make with your neighbor, prior to signing any agreement, would definitely be smart.

 

[zddoodah]

His lawyer is proposing an easement instead of a property line adjustment. . . . They say they can make the easement functionally the same as a property line adjustment.

Who are "they"?

can be an easement (they only type I heard mention has been access easement) functionally the same as a owning the area outright?

Define "functionally the same."

If you're not sure about what your neighbor's lawyer is proposing, then you need to discuss the matter with your lawyer.

 

[quincy]

The major difference between an express easement and a boundary line change is that an easement is a right to use someone else’s property under negotiated conditions whereas a boundary line change makes that same property your own. Your neighbor’s rights in the property are extinguished with the boundary line change.

It is my belief that you are less likely to have future disputes arise if you gain legal ownership to the property by changing the boundary line than you might otherwise have if the boundary line remains the same, the neighbor retains ownership of the property and the neighbor only grants you rights to use the property.

It is definitely something worth discussing with your lawyer.

 

[FarmerJ]

Did you consider that a future buyer of your property may decline to make a offer because they are not interested in buying a property that has easements no matter who the easement is supposed to benefit ? ( less hassles in the future )

 

[Litigator22]

I am working thru a property line dispute with a neighbor. We agreed to trade some areas of our properties. His lawyer is proposing an easement instead of a property line adjustment (the state reason is it will be cheaper). They say they can make the easement functionally the same as a property line adjustment.

They have not shared the easement language yet, but can be an easement (they only type I heard mention has been access easement) functionally the same as a owning the area outright?

Unless you have a weird passion for legal controversy and have an indebted attorney at your beckoning, then tell your neighbor's ill-educated and inexperienced lawyer to peddle his foolishness elsewhere.

Resolving a dispute over property division lines by vesting one with rights of access over another is unthinkable. AND cross trading deeds is no better.

Deal directly with the question of which property ends where. There are well-established, uncomplicated rules that apply. But don't compound one problem one by adding another; especially one that could be an unending headache.