Texas` laws on property rights, border disputes and intervention issues are unique, but should not be so different from other state laws. This article was the most common means of resolving a border dispute and moving a transaction forward, but the best way to achieve such a solution is for neighbouring owners to sign a written agreement between them, who (i) identify the line they wish to draw and encroach on those they wish to contain; and (ii) with the country and binds all future owners, successors and heirs to the wings concerned. As a general rule, marginal problems resulting from scales, fences and shrubs (removable objects) can be very easily cured, and lenders/investors will generally not cause too many problems about them. Therefore, it is preferable for landowners to agree to a written exploration/border agreement, so that the issue is addressed directly to all parties and future landowners. Ted is exhausted by the constant arguments with Barney and decides to sell his property and return to Ohio. The buyer on Ted`s land, Robin, needs a new property investigation to meet the demand of his lender, Goliath Bank. A survey is completed, and the survey 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, because the lender now refuses to get Robin`s loans until this „border and intervention problem“ has been resolved. Ted, Barney and Robin need to figure out how to solve these problems so Robin can make a loan. Oral agreement. Texas law states that if there is uncertainty, doubt or dispute over the location of a border, it can be set by a verbal agreement that is mutually binding on adjacent landowners, even if they were wrong about the actual situation of the line.
The existence of uncertainties, doubts or disputes is essential to the validity of the agreement. Gulf Oil Corp. vs. Marathon Oil Co., 152 S.W. 2d to 714. See also McAllister v. Samuels, 857 S.W.2d 768 (Tex). App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ) and Thompson v. Jamison, 699 S.W.2d 687 (Tex). App. – Texarkana in 1985, no writ.
Ted and Barney never accepted a line of demarcation orally, and an updated measure eventually prevailed, showing that the dividing line is not the barrier. Written agreement. Finally, written limitation agreements are the strongest argument in favour of the correct and undisputed position of the template. 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. Agreement. A demarcation line can be established for a sufficiently long period of time by the recognition and tolerance of all interested parties. This period is not precise, but beyond the statute of limitations for the acquisition of property by possession of harmful property, usually ten years. Yates v. Hogstrom, 444 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.
Civ. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 1969, no writ. To create a limit through tolerance, one must invalidate uncertainty, doubt or quarrels over the location of the border, not by the general aid regulation found in TEX. Prop. CODE ANN. Since Barney has only owned the adjacent land for a year, Barney will not meet the statute of limitations to tolerate the property. As a general rule, the statute of limitations requires 10 years or more of unlawful detention. Can the lender create a pawn on the object while Barney`s handover interferes with it? Does the fence line determine the boundary of the land or the survey? Texans are famous for their intensity of property rights, especially real estate rights. Some Texans might even say that a person`s right to own and control land is that person`s most important legal right as a U.S. citizen.