Loverkamp v. Loverkamp
45 N.E.2d 871, 381 Ill. 467 (1942)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parol agreement to establish a boundary cannot alter the clear and unambiguous description in a deed unless the boundary was previously in dispute or unascertained. Furthermore, a claim of adverse possession cannot succeed if the possession was permissive in its inception rather than hostile.
Facts:
- Charles Redmeier, Jr. owned the entire north half of the northeast quarter of a section of land.
- On December 5, 1916, Charles Redmeier, Jr. conveyed the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter to his son, Henry Redmeier, by a warranty deed with a clear legal description.
- Prior to the conveyance, Charles and Henry Redmeier allegedly made a parol (oral) agreement that a public road, which diverged from the surveyed property line, would serve as the boundary between their two parcels.
- This oral agreement, if effective, would have transferred a 3.5-acre triangular tract from Henry's parcel (the one described in the deed) to his father Charles's adjacent parcel.
- After the conveyance, Charles Redmeier, Jr. continued to possess and farm the 3.5-acre disputed tract as part of his own land, a use his son Henry permitted.
- Eventually, Henry Redmeier's tract was conveyed through a series of owners to the plaintiff, Charles Loverkamp.
- Charles Redmeier, Jr.'s tract was eventually conveyed by his heirs to the defendant, Lester Loverkamp.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed an ejectment suit against Defendant in the circuit court of Massac county.
- Defendant filed an answer with special defenses, claiming ownership based on a parol boundary agreement and, later, by adverse possession.
- The cause was tried before the court without a jury.
- The trial court entered a finding and judgment in favor of the Defendant.
- Plaintiff appealed the judgment to the reviewing 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 parol agreement to set a boundary line that contradicts the description in a deed, or a claim of adverse possession originating from permissive use, overcome the record title of the legal owner in an ejectment action?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Murphy
No. A parol agreement cannot alter a deed's clear boundary description, and possession that begins permissively cannot satisfy the hostility requirement for adverse possession. The court reasoned that the rule allowing parties to establish a boundary by parol agreement only applies under two conditions: 1) there is a dispute between adjoining owners as to the line's location, or 2) the line has not been ascertained. Neither condition existed here. The government survey provided sufficient markers to easily locate the quarter-quarter line, so it was neither disputed nor unascertained. To allow the oral agreement to alter the deed would improperly permit parol evidence to contradict the express terms of a written conveyance in an ejectment suit. Regarding the adverse possession claim, the evidence showed that Charles Redmeier, Jr.'s possession of the disputed tract was not hostile but was a 'permissive use, granted by the son to the father.' Adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal proof that the possession was hostile, actual, visible, notorious, exclusive, and continuous for the statutory period, with all presumptions favoring the true owner. Because the use began with permission, it was not hostile and could not ripen into title by adverse possession.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the primacy of the written deed in property law and clarifies the narrow scope of exceptions. It strictly limits the 'agreed boundary' doctrine, preventing its use to rewrite clear deeds based on informal oral understandings where no genuine uncertainty about the boundary exists. Furthermore, the ruling underscores the critical element of 'hostility' in adverse possession, affirming that permissive use, no matter how long, cannot transform into a valid claim of ownership. This protects record title holders from losing property due to neighborly accommodations or informal family arrangements.
