I'm re-establishing the lines of a parcel in downtown Louisville in order to subdivide it. I've discovered a party wall agreement in my research that is dated 1889 between Anslie Cochran & Co. and the Phoenix Storage Company. This agreement will control the east line of our piece. After extensive probing around, I have recovered the ancient wall as called in the record of 21" wide and have attached a couple pics showing the wall. To me, the intent of the agreement is a bit fuzzy. What do you all think?
Questions:
1. Is there a historical significance to the term 'party wall'?
2. The bold section...Is this simply establishing the boundary at 13-1/2" with ownership equally divided between the two parties?
3. Or is this a boundary agreement establishing the line at the center of the wall? If the parties knew where the line was originally, can they legally establish a new line with an agreement like this?
It must be noted that subsequent deeds call the line to be 157'-9".
I've transcribed the meat of the agreement as follows:
"This contract and conveyance as to Division Line and ownership of Division Wall made and entered this the 29th day of January 1889 by and between The Phoenix Storage Company (a corporation) of the first part and The Anslie Cochran & Co. (a corporation) of the second part, witnesseth that for and consideration of the mutual payment of each to the other of the sum of ten (10) dollars each, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, it is hereby agreed by and between both parties hereto that the Western Wall of the building of the said first part lately erected situated on the South side of Main Street between Ninth (9th) and Tenth (10th) Streets in Louisville, Kentucky, is a party wall, and that the same is held and owned by said parties jointly in undivided equal moeieties [sp?] and that the division line between the said parties land begins at a point on the South side of Main Street 157-1/2 feet East of the East line of 10th Street and extends back Southwardly at right angles to Main St and parallel to 10th Street 210 feet so that said party wall stands on the land of the first party 13-1/2" and on the land of the second party 7-1/2", now for the purpose of fixing said division line and of establishing the ownership of said party wall, the said first party hereby conveys and confirms unto the said second party the same as is herein before recited, and the said second party hereby conveys and confirms unto the said first party the same as is herein before recited.
In testimony whereof witness the signatures..."
> 1. Is there a historical significance to the term 'party wall'?
> 2. The bold section...Is this simply establishing the boundary at 13-1/2" with ownership equally divided between the two parties? Or is there something I'm missing?
There is a legal significance to the term "party wall". It means, among other things, that both of the adjoining landowners have the right to use the wall to support their buildings and comes with certain mutual obligations as to maintenance.
The instrument seems pretty clear that it fixes the boundary between the adjoining owners in relation to the party wall and specifies which is responsible for what part of the wall.
> 1. Is there a historical significance to the term 'party wall'?
> 2. The bold section...Is this simply establishing the boundary at 13-1/2" with ownership equally divided between the two parties? Or is there something I'm missing?
1) I don't know of any other significant use of "party wall" other than a wall common to two adjoining parties' properties.
2) That's the way I read it. It's just mutual acknowledgement from each party that the previously described boundary is accepted by both "parties".
Looks like you've found the original monument. 😉
That is a conveyance document so yes it could move the line.
I would say the boundary is 7-1/2" from the second party's side.
> 1. Is there a historical significance to the term 'party wall'?
Possibly. Most terms could have "historical significance".
> 2. The bold section...Is this simply establishing the boundary at 13-1/2" with ownership equally divided between the two parties?
That's how I read it. The wall was jointly owned, and the boundary line is located as described "so that said party wall stands on the land of the first party 13-1/2" and on the land of the second party 7-1/2"
> 3. Or is this a boundary agreement establishing the line at the center of the wall?
Not according the plain language of the document.
> If the parties knew where the line was originally, can they legally establish a new line with an agreement like this?
>
If it was their land, why couldn't they legally establish the boundary line (new or existing) between them?
> It must be noted that subsequent deeds call the line to be 157'-9".
The posted document and the monument (wall) are pretty darn good evidence of the location of the boundary line in 1889. However, this was a long time ago, I'd be sure that it is still controlling. In other words, what has happened (both in the records and on the ground) in the 125 years since this document was executed?
>
> If it was their land, why couldn't they legally establish the boundary line (new or existing) between them?
I was under the impression that if the line was known between parties (and if this were considered a boundary line agreement), a new line could not be established unless a title transfer took place.
> >
> > If it was their land, why couldn't they legally establish the boundary line (new or existing) between them?
>
>
> I was under the impression that if the line was known between parties (and if this were considered a boundary line agreement), a new line could not be established unless a title transfer took place.
True. However, what evidence do you have that the parties actually knew the location of the boundary in 1889? Even if they did and intended to convey land to "move" the boundary, the language of the document you posted would seem to do so.
This contract and conveyance as to Division Line and ownership of Division Wall made and entered this the 29th day of January 1889 by and between The Phoenix Storage Company (a corporation) of the first part and The Anslie Cochran & Co. (a corporation) of the second part, witnesseth that for and consideration of the mutual payment of each to the other of the sum of ten (10) dollars each, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, it is hereby agreed by and between both parties hereto that the Western Wall of the building of the said first part lately erected situated on the South side of Main Street between Ninth (9th) and Tenth (10th) Streets in Louisville, Kentucky, is a party wall, and that the same is held and owned by said parties jointly in undivided equal moeieties [sp?] and that the division line between the said parties land begins at a point on the South side of Main Street 157-1/2 feet East of the East line of 10th Street and extends back Southwardly at right angles to Main St and parallel to 10th Street 210 feet so that said party wall stands on the land of the first party 13-1/2" and on the land of the second party 7-1/2", now for the purpose of fixing said division line and of establishing the ownership of said party wall, the said first party hereby conveys and confirms unto the said second party the same as is herein before recited, and the said second party hereby conveys and confirms unto the said first party the same as is herein before recited.
But, I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night.. 😉
Are all the elements of a valid conveyance (for your state) present? What elements were required in 1889?
You are correct in all of your statements.
No argument here, but to clarify, in my question #3, I was considering the possibility of the parties establishing a new boundary line at the center of the wall. Interpreted this way, they obviously knew that the line was dividing the wall at 7-1/2" and 13-1/2" and they were moving it. I was just throwing out another possibility.
IF that were the intent, the wording of the description sure doesn't say that.
My thought is that they were documenting the location of the line in relationship to the (how did they say it?), newly constructed wall. I also think a lawyer had a too heavy hand in writing the description.
I would not assist the owners attempts to move the line by treating it as ambiguous. The written intent is clear. If they want to move it help them do it within the confines of the law... my .02..
Perhaps one building was larger and needed a more substantial wall?:-S
The wall is one thing and the boundary is another
The 1889 wording makes it clear to me where the ownership of the land starts and stops for each. It's 13.5 on one and 7.5 on the other. The wall, however, is effectively owned, in its entirety, by both landowners. Both landowners need the wall. The fact that it is not centered precisely on the property boundary is irrelevant. The designation as a party wall clarifies that one landowner cannot remove that part resting on his land without the full consent of the other owner of the wall. They must agree on the continued existence or eventual demolition of said party wall. Once removed, a new one cannot be installed in the exact same place without a prior agreement of both landowners.
The wall is one thing and the boundary is another
One fine point. The continued existence requires no agreement. Actions to change or remove the wall do. Such is the nature of 'undivided interests'...
