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. 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. Especially in older subdivisions, it is not uncommon for fence lines and sometimes even parts of improvements, such as entrances and garages, to have been placed or built over a boundary between two lots. Many people fear that such an intervention, if left unchecked, could lead to an « adverse property right » in which the intervening owner could claim ownership of part of his neighbour`s land. Alternatively, a major intervention could have negative effects on an owner`s ability to sell his property if it is the subject of an intervention by a neighbour. These problems are often resolved by mutual agreement with a boundary line agreement. Under such an agreement, the parties recognize the true boundary between the land and the intervening owner releases any rights to the attacked strip of land. In return, the owner « aggression » allows the intervention to last as long as it is not affected.
As soon as a problem occurs (for example. B the opposition of a potential buyer to the border agreement), the intervening owner agrees to withdraw the intervention at his own expense.. . . .