judge justice guy many members of the court my name is gino the veto and i represent the nationwide financial in this case in this case f their unsuccessful efforts to resolve their effect of that of course is that the parties agreed that there were no open questions of fact involved in that the matter could be resolved based upon the record as a matter connor claim because it did not satisfy the requirement of exclusivity the judge who dismissed the amended counter complaint to the case of city of display names and the two thousand and eleven case in catholic bishop each of those cases is that the already for the principle that in order that the the three cases were based upon a public easement their public use whereas they have an independent private easement or private eaves you can scan the cases that leased chicago's field and a catholic bishop and you'll find no reference to that the basis of the cases  those instances had nothing to do with the public use or a public easement the cases don't even refer to that and in any case the cases in illinois make clear the there no distinction between public and and private easements the promoters really don't attack the propriety of those decisions except to make the distinction i have just made the the court was absolutely correct in holding that exclusivity had not been mad because in in the promoters counterclaim the strip of land virtually every day on a daily basis so clearly there could be no showing that the use of that property had been taken away had been easement case the claimant gets use of the property not possession so the result is different it in this case is every indication given permission to be used to the property would have no way of knowing that the claim it was was making this claim so that  requiring the claimant to to actually dispossessed the owner of the property for the twenty year required period makes absolute sense so that the the title holder is on notice that there is a challenge and something should be done about it to give the title holder an opportunity to challenge that and  inconsistency with the nature of these moves were corporate title holder of the in the one who acquires an easement by prescription or both entitle to use the strips subject to the use of there's this disposition requirement and then dispossession which is an element of exclusivity lasts for a period of twenty years so if you may have a situation where an owner is absent or is simply not using the  example in this case a nationwide could have put another drive away and it's a property and then decided to use that driveway soley totally ignoring the other the other strip during that period it would be argued that for the twenty year period the owner was totally dispossessed at least of use of that property after that the end of the twenty years if the owner said well you know i think i'd like to use that strip and then he would have he doesn't need to lose possession as an adverse possession case but he would have the ability then to use it along with the the claimants claim is not dependent upon the rights of others but the case you refer to mckenzie bursts elliott and other subsequent cases schmidt versus brown and  look vs bringing guns are older supreme court cases which have a common thread in each one of those cases a promise or  agreement was made with the claim concerning use of the property and in each case there was a reliance on that asked to deal with somebody else and procure some benefit for the title holder he did that based upon that the title holder said you have a lifetime easement through my property in in  little case of the brothers who are settling their father's estate agreed that one brother would get the south forty acres but would have a lifetime easement through the north forty of the other brother so you had a situation there where there was a promise or an agreement which was acknowledged by the title holder and upon which the the claim reliance so in those kinds of cases it shouldn't make any difference and in each of those cases the the court made note of the fact that there was an oral agreement  which violated the statute of frauds but notwithstanding that they gave the weight to the these promises and agreements i see my time is running out and i'd just like to say something about  we encourage the court if you need to get to it if you disagree with our view of a catholic bishop and the holdings of the ask the score to address the issue of adversity in this case there is no real proof of adversity the the rule is that when the origin of an easement is unknow in this case the predecessor titleholder to the poor buddhas testified that her relationship with the predecessor title to nationwide that