constructive notice of ownership so all the way back to two thousand and three i would posit that this plaintiffs had his point is that an obligation to at least look into the title of the property and to find out whether it is in worked to their benefit and certainly to my clients detriment and had she been notified much sooner of what had occurred she would have taken action on her interest she only took that you could only take action here because she's a very gloria think to even think about her since you know she was gone and she didn't have his children were born you certainly knew that she didn't own the house she was not part of how to how do we know ingenue law well she did she know did she know that george wasn't  to who was on the last of the dating back to one hundred and sixty three as a matter of public record she even if she wants to call even if you could have cleaned the time i didn't have actual knowledge of ownership she could have done a minimal amount of research to find because of a divorce situation sounds somewhat similar here if the daughter wanted to buy this piece of property and she was concerned that her husband her ex husband was going to make some kind of money so she worked out this plan with her mother  for the daughter to pay all expenses associated with the property but for the mother to be the rector type so they bought the property title to the mother the mortgage was in the mother's name the mother never took occupancy your possessions property actual possession and continuous possession for twenty years twenty years is an important is an important factor here as well i'm so john o'connor passes away in two thousand and three i'm  present at most this point if it does not have actual possession she has not lived in the property since nineteen or at most all she had was the possession constructive possession cannot be used in ascertaining whether the twenty year o but that's as of now on there any equitable provisions they could be called upon to say that your client needed to do something to secure your interest in the property not to my knowledge i haven't seen a single residence and never returned or communicated about the property for almost fifty years when you say abandon what you picked up or stop left the state of illinois and never return to illinois never had anything unification regarding the property never had any inquiries we guarding the property never visited the property again fifty years well how do you know she didn't talk to your ex husband before she  in her deposition which we went to florida for a deposition so she hadn't been back to illinois she said she had never talked to john o'connor after the divorce as they constitute a vain record and that coupled with no inquiries regarding the property no never visiting or observing the property never having any discussions regarding the problem here in her deposition she was asked have you ever discussed your the problem your property interest with your children so if something happened you know use the language and i think this case would says to create enough through there must be an actual exclusive possession of the whole premise is claiming the whole in this case he locked the doors he and three in his death which was twenty five years thereafter after his death from the title perspective rachel stewart became the sole property owner however again it had no involvement with the property had never talked to in her deposition she concedes that she never had any conversation whatsoever with either loreal khan or christine's mother or christine other than the date of the deposition she had never had a yes and then and i think that's what the supreme court is very clear that when you allow somebody else to take full control of your problem for an extended period of time in the last as twenty years if we really have over fifty years at this point of that occurring change we also we have glorio connor becomes the possessor of the property still living in the property of the principal residence where she lived until the day she died she lived there she still controlled the property exclusively control came there paid the taxes paid the insurance and did all of those things shortly before her death in two thousand and ten almost thirty days before she died she did the property to her daughter she didn't do a title search obviously she was pretty much on her deathbed she was dying and she was just trying to get things in order prepare to quit claim deed to her daughter to convey any interest she has in that property she i i honestly believe  actors possession and you are sort of tacitly agreeing that somebody else on set property correct when you're filing their claim it doesn't mean when you started possession you believe that when you're filing your claim you're saying i don't want it because i possessed her for twenty years if i was in the interest rates were going up people were buying houses i mean it was really you know you have your mortgage and you start with your interest rate because if you want to refinance you're going to be paying a much higher interest rate on interest rates if you remember in the seventy's were one thousand two hundred and fourteen percent of people if you have a acquired legal title that way in illinois real estate title passes by year to year airships automatically by law so if you want real estate when you die it automatically goes to your errors subject to your legal equitable or otherwise unless she has some idea some relative certitude that he only property is attended common or as a sole owner i think in her mind  and the other actually i i my contention is that jon stewart owned the property after twenty years because he had an ouster of stewart so when he died he already had his twenty years  tenet requires a higher standard than they have st possession against non contact well if he didn't oust her yet the defendant then how could this be anything other than permissive and therefore it was never hostile if he didn't no the provision wasn't coming from john o'connor they're arguing that rachel rachel stewart gave us permission and we're saying that never happened there was never any discussion of the actions of john o'connor and grant or reacting information it's the actions of rachel stewart that are that there are granted permission but the facts are that she never had any conversations or communications regarding the property she never talked to became so hostile in its character as to amount to a constructive ouster of his color ten and put a statue of limitations in motion against him it is not reasonable to suppose that during all these years of you just described in the case citation in this situation where she didn't contest it he never quote unquote held the property as if it were his own and antagonistic to her he she would have to be consenting to his use and never end it regardless and i am letting letting them who has the bird is it the possessor who has to do things in such a way like possibly giving notice that i own this property if you don't have the right to be here to get out of here or is it the duty of the i think the polis case says that if it's vacant property the presumption is that it's permissive use if it's improved property here it's a single family residence the law is very clear that if it is a improved property the in writing ahead and only number one of the court found there was an expressed agreement as to what was going to happen with the property they had expressed agreement was the provision it was the consent from the title only to the daughter that you're going to live in this house i'm going to be the only yes so you're basically your position is that john o'connor and his st wife were joint tenants at the expiration of twenty years after their divorce basically at that point he o'connor then had full title to that property that is my position without notice to rachel without any change in this step of legal status of the title correct and it therefore gloria possessory interest passes to christine but the the critical link is john's title if you will at the and of twenty years of adverse possession based on your theory about history i think there's two independent ways you can find possession you can find it in john o'connor before his death and you can find it in glory o'connor and christine one xians possession after his death so here we have fifty years we need twenty so we have a twenty where so she gets to by law there's no case is there it is very clear in the wall you get to do that make do we need her to be christie to be actually using the property she does she needs to control the problem you know you have councils argue that she didn't have to live there there's no requirement under the everest because action law that you have to reside there the property isn't fox like she lives in the neighborhood she possessed the property shortly after mother's death she did significant modeling to the house the house wasn't it or shake she spent you know forty fifty thousand dollars remodelling the house spent subsequently the house broke down and then she rebuilt the house i don't very common for the farmers to figure out what to do with the marital home or any of the real estate that's owned by zero and one party leaves the property over to the other or there's something put in the marital settlement agreement that says you're one spouse is going to refinance the property o client or did your client affirmatively remember now we didn't you know the miracle settlement agreement or the divorce of the judgment said nothing about the house i believe that was her testimony in the position as we didn't discuss it can't remember some other