property in brighton illinois its area consists of several acres that joins a tract owned by the defendants the abilities which also consists of several acres a few years after acquiring an interest in the acquiring and moving she actually resides on the property she commission the survey the form to she could determine the exact location of the property line the neighbor the defendant ellie's they have a cattle fence that was installed what distance and then just stops about what we estimate to be about ninety five to one hundred feet short of the rear corner of my client's property mr caruthers in your opinion smearing zuba day or yes the sentence did have cattle or horses on the west side of the fence what would prohibit the cattle or horses from going on east when they prevent them from doing that if they were to go all the way down as it were the cows that my client and notice were up here more towards where the houses nearly rode but but to answer your question i suppose if they won they were to go all the way down for n you're saying down the we're already on this in the knowledge you're back your main argument i want to go to to mess you up on your train of thought but you're saying there's nothing in the court order and i know you have arguments that you want to make the decision contrary this but in the court order there's nothing about that final ninety ninety five the dresses not at all the end all the court the court order just says that there my motion for summary judgment and i defend it's granted and that any territory east or rather west of the fence is now going to be own by the defendants what could west of the fence mean from the southernmost point of where the fence exists everything west so that i mean would that be a reasonable interpretation it would a concern that we have obviously is in my client who doesn't in the movie time soon if she were to want to finance it or sell it we have we really don't know what working brain is what a day now was one of the positions raised in my motion to reconsider was you know we're actually a noun a situation where the who owns what is even more confused than it was before and that we don't have a legal description we don't have anything that clearly defines where the line is other than a fence which i although i know there is certainly some disagreement about whether or not they've maintained it over the years at best it's an old fence that that's fallen down on occasion as required repair whether or not it's been repaired and that is now the the marker it's not a natural boundary like a river which typically doesn't move or a road or anything so it's something that can be easily moved so at this point we and that was one of the issues that i have appealed on and i took issue with in the in the court's order was you know we don't have any definite idea as to where the boundary line and i know that this court as recently as last year in brighton ran horseraces johnson reaffirmed what has become more what appears to obtain title to via adverse possession and at no time has that even even whether the courts order in the primitive defense raised by the defense the exact the exact boundary the exact defined area of what they're seeking to have transferred was never so it was never raised so that's a myth that's why it's not only a problem with that with the court's order but we also have an issue of well worthy elements of adverse views resolve all they have to do is agree with each other and establish a marker which would tell the world this is gone i certainly agree with that and i can represent you that overtures were made long before coming here have may or may not have prevented that because it seemed it does seem an easy solution but it's just you know now is a situation where you don't know how much you own and we don't know how much we've lost exactly we don't have a can so why don't we just figured out obviously we didn't this was one of the my clients with the true owners of record for the property would have granted my motion for summary judgment as to our issue but then if they were so inclined grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment and sort of supplants it's yours but now in the subsequent order we're going to take it bit loose i think actually the court if it were to record a record right subject to of course at an adverse possession claim let me ask you this is i understand that your client's dee of the deed and as you and the deed and you know comparing to the rebars and trying to determine you know the location property line i think the issue that was raised by the ellie's was comparing the legal description in my client's deed to a legal description in a deed from i think hundred eighty percent some point in the eyes i misunderstood because i thought the survey was different from your client's western boundary and from the defendant's my understanding of the dr matters is that in dealing with passes that once you get once you've established the twenty years you have rights i mean i could in theory if we were next door neighbors and someone's been using it in other cases at it and driveway for twenty years she doesn't really can really go back to the former owners and inquire about the history of this fence so all we really have to go on is their affidavit that it was installed in one nine hundred eighty of course what they also have to show we don't think they have shown is that it has been maintained in use for the required period of time b and that's what we don't know the defendant of pelleas they don't live out there unlike my client who lives there they say you know that the defendant policed my understanding live elsewhere they don't live there this is some family property it's been of it's been the family for a long time that remains to be seen it's their burden to show and the only thing that the trial court really had to go on in finding that adverse possession had been met was that was the affidavit in the general statement that was made in defendant's affidavit that you know on several occasions over the years we've we've repaired the fence something to that effect and we contended that you know in applying the laws we have in our in our brief that the that is too general and broad based statement to to have the specificity required to show that yes in fact there has been active use adverse use of this property for the required period of time so we think that what the court had in the record in relied on and granting that if in its motion for summary judgment finding that all the elements were estab was in error because of because really of that issue and bad of that among the failure to clearly define the the area that is being conveyed so they it's a pretty heavy standard that they have to meet up to show b brief cites cable versus vulture another case where the court found it just a big testimony of taking care of russian clearing it over you know over the years that that was insufficient to establish strict proof required to maintain adverse to to acquire adverse possession rights now which as i've already had demonstrate we can take issue also with the trial court not requiring any specific legal descriptions the you know the posts the way the that's proper mean even now we're we're known we're no better off than we were in the beginning and fact it's more confusing because now we have offenses been down in place that could easily be moved at any time by anybody and all we have is a quarter as well everything west the the defendant holmes well that could change it's just in for that reason it's that the failure of of the defendant to fully illustrate what they were seeking in their mission we find completely  says johnson from last year in finding that i think you would find that the defendants failed to satisfy the man's side it's not just the court didn't set out to require a legal description it's also that the defense failed to include a legal description or any type of description beyond everything west of the fence in their requests forever so that's right so i think what you do is you reversed the court's granting of the defendant's motion for summary judgment for failure to adhere to that what i'm going to call the sixth aliment of adverse possession to clearly designate that what it is you are seeking to acquire rights so i think when he sent it back and i'm thinking that you could go for a couple of reasons but that is to the issue of bail or did aker accurately describe what it is you're taking i think that alone doesn't set that out at all so i think what you prefer we remember back to isn't for it to compel the court to conduct a limited and i think they failed to meet the elements of adverse possession so it's it's just a trial on on those elements and i think if i were in the record concerning the fence being disrepair in terms of at least rebutting anything we've said there's nothing about that the fence falling down all these allegations that he's made during his argument are not supported by the record and you look through the records you won't see any of that specifically what portion of the land let your take on this so i think that's a that's an argument to be rejected i mean in in these kinds of in these kinds of possession cases you're not going to get a fixed boundary you're not going to get some legal description you don't get those when you get this kind of a situation you get ordinarily some kind of boundary that is not a legal description and i've given you a couple of cases in description the fence is a line another one it's like trees and flowers there's a tree in flower bed that's that's the joiner case i mean there's no legal description of what he's talking about and even the cases you cited in his rebuttal about the others are contract cases i mean contracts are entirely different and you're dealing with a situation where you're entering good agreement to buy and sell certain ground get specific this is pretty good descriptions what you're buying by the way there's some there's some leniency even in those situations in terms of adding things to determine to determine the exact property being bought and sold in those situations we've got a whole different situation adverse possession you get down trees not based on legal descriptions that all and by the way i mean these problems can be solved you know when it comes time to sell this property you just say i can't warrant that in i can't give you that i'll quit claim you what i got i mean there's a solution to this problem it's just they don't like that solution so i don't know if i was until the surveyor got out i mean that's always the situation in adverse possession you've got to keep track of where the fence line is and by the way you know in terms of settlement we tried some days i mean we tried some early on but most are conceding if if there is a disagreement concerning the location of the fence and whether or not it's on their property right i understand that but i'm talking about literally this is right  his father have caused fence post to be removed why did that happen how do i know it didn't happen prior to two thousand or mean i've heard all kinds of stuff that's not in the record all so i just want to make it clear that that that's the situation and that's a major problem for them well basically your argument is that   there's nothing in there that even suggests that it's not in close down on that in my mind there really isn't ok i mean they've got they've got a survey and you ask a question about the real estate the of an l shaped piece that wraps around their property and we go east then north up to sort of the southeastern edge of their property and then run along the southern edge of their property down down to a location where we cut north and that description if you use it isn't it doesn't give you the same location it's a different it's a different description to put you in a different place that northern boundary where you cut back from is the course and distances on that are different at the other thing i would say is their survey if you look at their survey the highlighted courses in distances yes for all we ever asked for was adverse possession west of the fence so your position is if the fence doesn't go all the way that's what we need to bear if it does go all the way down it's ours yes that's right good that we get we get find some way and you just quickly you things to sort of strict and behind this can be done it's not hard to do you've got to get people won't work with each other a little bit it can be done and so i mean the descriptions adequate always said as we get the property the location of the mounties but based upon their description not ours i mean we had a survey done before we buy there's a survey done said here right and we thought we were right  and served as a boundary line between between two pieces of property for more than thirty years suit wasn't filed in two thousand and eleven it served as a boundary line during all that time i've had an affidavit i think that was properly heated fax it says stablish is that we claim to use an ownership of it and used it that way so it's been that way for thirty years more than thirty years more than that now a long long time affidavits rebutting any of this there's a lot of allegations here today nothing supported by affidavit to suggest this that of the other but i would say this by two thousand by the end of two thousand we've got adverse possession of that ground it's done i mean don't even know about it that they are going to give me all kinds affidavits about the pence being a bad shape but other people using this round the sides us all kinds of things in terms of the cases they show you that there was a break in the chain of ownership of claiming adverse possession there's lots of things that could be done there's no affidavit submitted concerning any of that there's really no genuine issue of fact this fence has been there for a long time it's been a division mine for a long time  the court acted properly there was no genuine issue of material fact in this case by the end of two thousand there was nothing we've got this crown so i would ask you to affirm the lower court's judgment i realize it creates some difficulties because there may be something on the south on the south end there but we didn't ask for that we just asked the property west of the fence and that's what we've got and i think that's we're entitled to so we're asking for that really representations i just want to respond to a few things that he said taras no facts in the record that we had no counter affidavit to his clients that david however i do want to point out that my clients verified complaint elements and should be reversed as for the the problem yes i mean if if nothing is nothing more is done in this file is right my client goes to sell it i guess she did the best that she could do is it quickly indeed course that significantly if the best you can offer your successor inside was a quit claim deed that significantly it's a factor and in the price it's going to be a problem and frankly if nothing more happens i'm going to talk to my client on how much more she's going to invest in this but if you know what the natural thing produced by a complaint quite a while good to sort it out and it's unfortunate we go through several years of litigation only to have that big unresolved question exactly what's mine what's yours in the best we can do is a quit claim deed but that's really what she's left with the court that lower court found that you know she was the owner of record for all of that property what we should what she stands to lose happened after the transfer so if you're implying she would have a claim astutely the prior the prior owner which i say i think that the truck or by establishing that that she was the owner of record for all the property all the way up to the line but that's another point i think that's and spew enough i'm hearing counts right sounds like we may not even have an agreement as to where the boundary line is where where the line is w what i saw in the brief that was filed by police and also what i've heard today it doesn't sound like they can see the point that my clients are indeed the true owner of all of this property which is a prerequisite to asserting adverse possession rights so have it's another argument i believe that that occurs to me that if if they can't even acknowledge from the outset that my clients are the true owners of this property i don't see how they could have asserted adverse possession rights al and i'm reminded of that and listening to counsel today talk about well i'm not sure well you know we have these deeds and different legal descriptions and it is still kind of up in the air and so for that reason a more i'd ask that you have remand this back to the truck work for a trial