Brown v. Lober

Supreme Court of Illinois
75 Ill. 2d 547, 389 N.E.2d 1188 (1979)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The covenant of quiet enjoyment is prospective in nature and is breached only when there is an actual or constructive eviction of the grantee by a paramount titleholder, not merely by the discovery of a superior title.

Facts:

In 1947, a prior owner of an 80-acre tract of land reserved a two-thirds interest in the mineral rights.
On December 21, 1957, William and Faith Bost sold the 80-acre tract to the Plaintiffs via a statutory warranty deed that contained no exceptions.
Plaintiffs took possession of the surface of the land after the purchase.
On May 8, 1974, Plaintiffs granted a coal option to Consolidated Coal Company for all the coal rights on the tract for $6,000.
Around May 4, 1976, during the option period, Plaintiffs discovered that they only owned a one-third interest in the subsurface coal rights due to the 1947 reservation.
As a result of this discovery, Plaintiffs had to renegotiate their agreement with Consolidated Coal Company, receiving only $2,000 for the one-third interest they actually owned.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiffs sued the executor of Faith Bost's estate in the Montgomery County circuit court (the trial court) for breach of the covenant of seisin.
The trial court found the covenant of seisin was breached, but held that the 10-year statute of limitations barred the claim.
Plaintiffs filed a post-trial motion asserting a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, which the trial court denied.
Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed to the Fifth District Appellate Court (an intermediate appellate court).
The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case.
The defendant, as petitioner, was granted leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a grantee suffer a constructive eviction, thereby breaching the covenant of quiet enjoyment, when they are unable to complete a sale of mineral rights because they discover a paramount title exists in a third party?

Opinions:

Majority - Underwood, J.

No. The covenant of quiet enjoyment is not breached by the mere existence of a paramount title; it is only breached when the grantee is actually or constructively evicted by the holder of that title. The inability to sell an interest in the land due to a discovered title defect does not constitute a constructive eviction. The covenant of quiet enjoyment is prospective and protects against disturbances of possession, not defects in title. Here, the subsurface mineral estate is 'vacant' because no one has attempted to remove the minerals or otherwise possess them. Since the paramount titleholder never interfered with the Plaintiffs' possession or enjoyment of the mineral rights, no eviction occurred. To hold otherwise would erase the critical distinction between the covenant of quiet enjoyment and the covenant of seisin, the latter of which was breached upon delivery of the deed but for which the statute of limitations had already expired.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the traditional, strict distinction between present and future covenants in a warranty deed. It clarifies that a breach of the future covenant of quiet enjoyment requires an actual interference with possession, not just a financial loss resulting from the discovery of a title defect. The ruling places a significant burden on grantees to conduct thorough title searches and to sue for breaches of present covenants, like the covenant of seisin, within the statutory time limit. Grantees cannot later use the covenant of quiet enjoyment as a substitute claim for a title defect unless their possession is actually disturbed by the paramount titleholder.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Brown v. Lober (1979)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature