Texas` laws on real estate rights, border disputes, and intervention are unique, but they shouldn`t be that different from other state laws. This article presented the most common ways to resolve a border dispute and advance a transaction, but the best way to achieve such a solution is for neighboring owners to sign a written agreement between them, which identifies (i) the border they wish to establish and the abuses they wish to contain; and (ii) with the country and binds all future owners, successors and heirs to the relevant treaties. Ted is exhausted by the incessant quarrels with Barney and decides to sell his belongings and return to Ohio. Ted`s land buyer, Robin, needs a new survey that will be conducted in the field to meet the requirements of his lender, Goliath Bank. A survey is complete, and the investigation shows that the fence line is not accurate and that Barney`s tool shed is partly on Ted`s property. This is a problem for Robin, as the lender refuses to close Robin`s loan until this “border and intervention problem” is resolved. Ted, Barney and Robin have to figure out how to solve these problems so that Robin can close their loan. Written agreement. Finally, the written agreements on borders are the strongest argument in favour of the correct and undisputed position of the border. Gulf Oil Corp.
v. Marathon Oil Co., 152 s.W.2d to 721. A written agreement between Ted and Barney would have resolved this dispute over the property line. Typically, border issues resulting from sheds, fences, and shrubs (removable objects) can be cured very easily, and lenders/investors usually won`t raise too much of a problem about them. For this reason, it is preferable for landowners to agree to a written agreement on border interventions/lines so that the issue is addressed directly to all parties and future owners of the property. Oral agreement. Texas law states that, in the event of uncertainty, doubt, or controversy about the status of a border, it can be established by an oral agreement that binds the owners of adjacent land, even if they may be wrong about the actual situation of the line. The existence of uncertainties, doubts or disputes is essential for the validity of the agreement. Gulf Oil Corp. vs. Marathon Oil Co., 152 p.W.
2d at 714. See also McAllister v. Samuels, 857 p.W.2d 768 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writing), and Thompson v. Jamison, 699 p.W.2d 687 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 1985, no writing). Ted and Barney have never agreed orally on a border line, and an updated poll eventually takes hold and shows that the border is not the fence.
That is the agreement. A dividing line may be established for a sufficient period of time by the recognition and tolerance of all interested parties. This period is not accurate, but generally exceeds ten years the limitation period for home ownership by unfavorable ownership. Yates v. Hogstrom, 444 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Civ. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 1969, no writing). To establish a border by tolerance, there must be uncertainty, doubt or controversy about the location of the border, which will not be invalidated by the general law on transmission in TEX. SUPPORT. ANN CODE § 5.021 (Vernon 1984).
As Barney has only owned the adjacent land for a year, Barney will not meet the statute of limitations for the property`s tolerance. Typically, the statute of limitations requires ten years or more of harmful possession. Ted is a landowner in West Texas and Barney is his adjacent landowner….