Hermes v. Fischer
589 N.E.2d 1005, 226 Ill. App. 3d 820, 168 Ill. Dec. 605 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claimant's mistaken belief that they hold title to a property does not defeat the hostility element of an adverse possession claim. Successive periods of possession by different people may be combined or 'tacked' to meet the statutory period if there is privity between them, demonstrated by an intent to transfer possession of the disputed land.
Facts:
- From 1958 to 1962, G.W. and Ella Lewis owned two adjacent parcels, Tract A and Tract B, and farmed them together as a single unit.
- In 1962, the Lewises conveyed Tract A to Adlai Rust, who continued to farm both tracts as a single unit through 1964.
- In 1965, Adlai Rust sold Tract A to Carl Hermes. Both parties mistakenly believed that Tract B was included in the sale and the property inspection.
- Carl Hermes and his sons, the plaintiffs, farmed both tracts as a single, continuous field from 1965 until 1983.
- In June 1983, Carl Hermes deeded Tract A to his seven children (the plaintiffs), and an appraisal reviewed by all parties prior to the transfer included both Tract A and B as a single property.
- The plaintiffs continued to farm both tracts as a single unit from June 1983 until November 1986.
- In the fall of 1986, John Fischer, who had acquired the record title to Tract B from an heir of the original owners, erected a fence and placed a mobile home on Tract B.
Procedural Posture:
- In November 1986, Jacob Hermes and other family members (plaintiffs) filed a complaint against John Fischer (defendant) in the circuit court of Sangamon County for quiet title, ejectment, and trespass.
- Fischer filed an amended counterclaim for interference with property.
- The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment.
- On August 20, 1991, the circuit court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring them owners by adverse possession.
- Defendant Fischer, the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, the appellees.
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 claimant establish the elements of adverse possession, specifically hostility and continuous possession, when their claim is based on a mistaken belief of ownership and the disputed land was not included in the deed from their predecessors in possession?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cook
Yes, a claimant establishes the elements of adverse possession under these circumstances. The 'hostile' nature of possession does not require ill will, but merely the assertion of ownership that is incompatible with the true owner's rights; a mistaken belief of ownership does not negate this hostility. The court found that continuous possession for the statutory period was met through 'tacking.' Even though the deed for Tract A did not describe Tract B, the predecessors in interest (Rust and Carl Hermes) demonstrated a clear intent to transfer possession of Tract B along with Tract A. This intent was evidenced by the on-site inspection before purchase and the property appraisal before the gift to the plaintiffs, which established the necessary privity of possession. The continuous and open farming of the land for over 20 years satisfied the remaining elements of actual, open, notorious, and exclusive possession.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that the 'hostile' element of adverse possession is an objective standard based on the possessor's actions, not their subjective belief or state of mind. It clarifies that a good-faith mistake about a boundary line is sufficient to establish hostility. Furthermore, the case provides a strong precedent for 'tacking' in mistaken-boundary disputes, holding that privity of possession can be established by evidence of intent to transfer the disputed property, even if it is not described in the formal deed. This ruling makes it easier for subsequent possessors to meet the statutory time requirement in adverse possession cases based on long-standing, but mistaken, land use.
