and he said and his ruling space suggests that he thinks that's probably the end of the inquiry and i mean i don't i'm not here to contend that this was not a case for my client the billboard company started out license i think it be unusual for a billboard company just sneak on to a piece of property and stick a billboard up and run away what they do is they negotiate with whoever owns property and they get a license before the dog concession in arm i think that's like you're saying that there were there was original permission i think there must have been original permission from somebody at some point because with that probably something to do with it well i think that's a big issue ok i mean we have there's three options right there were two licenses of record in this case one of those call s p t for seven six  four it strikes me that it's most likely that it was as p t four seven six and that we got an a letter in october from t b i that says that's if it's six nine four expired january first two and after that it is no permission and the it's permission to hold the property  the clock starts running employees which is correct and on both of those scenarios the clock expires before the city ended up with putting their billboard on there or even get so those are two scenarios by which i think it's possible theoretically that you know that that's one way that the other one is we have the wrong right and we don't know which how the license came into being or anything about it right and if that's true there is a there's a presumption that applies and that presumption says that if it's adverse people get them open uninterrupted continuous exclusive seven there's been a board on that spot there's been no rent paid since december of ninety one again if that's when you start the clock running then my client had it in december of two thousand  recession the court also said that refusal to pay rent is immaterial this is a bill and to me if you have a billboard on a piece of property it is normal in the business and it is i think normal for people to assume and understand that billboards pay rent to the land to the person that owns property and if not a person on property would say get off the rock right who wants a billboard on the property unless somebody is there pay him and palm so that's i think what happened i mean i think illinois central probably owned it it's just a guess i don't know that i don't think you haven't a clear on that but they slipped on the rights right because they should have noticed that there was a billboard on the property and nobody's paying them rent but they did and so how do you deal with that i think they have enough with geisha kick somebody out and if they don't do  it i don't have to go quickly they just have to do within twenty years and in this situation they're failed with us and so my client has a right to have an easement on that pro my client testified my client president should see it all testified this is not unusual it's said it's not it's not it's not an unusual occurrence for built the railroads to lose track of their properties and that's why they have these these firms like t d i who does the leases for these properties and apparently there's a mix up in who owned it and so my client said well the heck with it will just leave our sign the not pain body better for them they get right without having to pay paying your rent and so they ended up owning it for twenty years and so my client has his entitle to a judgment for  to them after we've had it over twenty years so we're going to assume that the railroad company was happy to have a billboard on the property without being paid rent i mean that's kind of what you're suggesting right but yeah we we're just going to ignore but i mean in all these cases a bad person ever special but somebody is using it adversely against the other person's rights right and they and i think in pretty much all these things like somebody  whether it's adverse right and the and that's it and so i've got three here's three reasons it's well there's two reasons if it's a perfect one i mean it fits the license expired it was  be there and this isn't why you know neighbors where you know we're buddy buddy in we're friends right this is a railroad company in a billboard and they had a license that hansel now what else can you do you anybody right after the license can't and or somebody else owned it that didn't know somebody should have the you have a case that supports your position and there's a lot of cases there's a case that says that a license can terminate that's what you're sufficient to be adverse my client put a billboard had a billboard on the property put it on how everyone look at walford purse jones is the one says you can take a license and if you become adverse to that license that that that's adverse and so for instance in that case a guy had a fence and that fence was with a name and they said to the neighbor do you want to do a survey now don't worry about your friends and they are getting married right so they're pretty tight and so then what happened was they did a survey somebody else bought it everybody got mad at each other and so so there was a fence there still and there was a survey so everybody knew what it was and so the court held that that was adverse possession because there was there was a fence there even originally there was a license and it was an agreement wasn't weiss it was permission it wasn't an agreement and once they found out there was a survey and they knew were  right well that's what we have here i mean there's no question that my client didn't know that property had a billboard on their license expired and my planer paid rent that's adverse i don't know how much more adverse you can get them having a billboard on piece of property and not pain they should or a big slap on the rights so thanks and open with it if if you don't think i'm right that there's a you know these and the true owner which is the railroad that the city of springfield contracted with subsequently revoked that permission in two thousand and twelve point of counsel today has presented an argument that that license was cancelled in that letter the city respectfully disagrees and would argue that that license was actually transferred to the subsequent purchaser of the railroad company there is no indication from our standpoint that that license was actually terminated pursuant to the any time between the parties benefiting from that license the truck were  and if you look at why the trial court found this to be a license it is because the premises was used for a specific purpose it continued to be used for a specific purpose after there was a change in ownership or whatever that circumstance was there is a prescriptive easement here involving adverse possession continuous possession exclusive possession and it's inconsistent with the claim for titles of the true owner for requisite period of time that's a heavy burden of proof to carry for the plaintiff here has to be done so with clear and distinct evidence which i don't or which the series of the positions that simply did not occur for example on the elements of being adverse permissive and  foundation will not be able to be provided to trial furthermore these documents are not even certain to pertain to the property in question so that presents an issue that it's not clear if the state evidence furthermore as the justices hit upon payments enough are not a demonstration of an adverse nature had there been a demand a letter sent or a collections action started in the plaintiff said i'm not going that would be of an adverse of there's no expansion so as a result you can argue that's been expanded upon to an adverse nature and the plaintiff has mentioned something of a rebuttal presumption under the case law presented the rebuttable presumption of an adverse nature only applies if the origin of the easement is unknown it has been admitted here today that there was a permitted use in an agreement in place for that billboard to be erected roughly one thousand and seventy seven furthermore it does not say the other but also there is nothing that would indicate that the license was actually terminated the adverse nature on that is entirely dependent on the fact of a failure to pay rent which does not appear to be the license didn't have a rule based on the facts said evidence in the record there is no record of the original agreement from one nine hundred seventy seven indicating the terms of terminations of a license or anything of that nature but based on the character of that letter and subsequent letters and the most recent letter from two thousand and twelve terminating the license it would give the impression that the railroad was with the understanding that there was a valid agreement be entire time and only discuss discovered that there wasn't an agreement in place until relatively recently and at that point the billboard was torn down and the city put up its billboard in its place so based on the records and evidence that railroad was under the impression that there was applies if the other elements of a prescriptive easement are filled here in two particular circumstances under a claim or title inconsistent with the owner i do not believe that as a fill in that is on the basis of the billboard it remained a billboard and became a billboard it's never changed the uses stayed consistent since one thousand nine hundred seventy also the element of for requisite period of time there are no facts or evidence in the record indicating that the predecessor interest failed to pay rent other than hearsay statements by them and there is nothing in there that indicates that it's been for the five or ten years or whatever it may the failure to pay rent is adverse of nature and finally one other point necessary parties the plaintiff claims this is an though it isn't a jetman action brought by the plaintiff against the city this will ultimately adversely impact the property rights of the railroad that owns this property is it seeking to establish a prescriptive easement against a party who is not to find that a prescriptive easement has been met i'm in the alternative and necessary party in the railroad we need to be present for this because they are going to be greatly impacted and their property rights will be great