2020 IL App (4th) 190160-U 

NO. 4-19-0160 

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

REY JANNUSCH, 

Counterplaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

JOHN D. REHTMEYER, 

Counterdefendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

) 

)

Appeal from 

Circuit Court of 

McLean County 

No. 12CH235 

Honorable 

Paul G. Lawrence, 

Judge Presiding.

 JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court. 

 Justices DeArmond and Turner concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court did not err in (1) valuing 

the parcels awarded to counterdefendant or (2) partitioning the property. 

¶ 2 This appeal arises from a partition action wherein counterplaintiff, Rey Jannusch, 

and counterdefendant, John D. Rehtmeyer, sought to partition their respective interests in a piece 

of property referred to as the “Grove.” In May 2018, the trial court entered an order partitioning 

the property. Counterplaintiff appeals, arguing the trial court erred by (1) determining the value 

of two one-acre parcels without competent evidence, (2) not ordering a judicial sale of the Grove 

after determining the property could not be partitioned without manifest prejudice to the parties, 

(3) determining the boundary of one one-acre parcel contained certain structures, and 

(4) partitioning the Grove in a way that was manifestly prejudicial to counterplaintiff. For the 

following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

NOTICE

This order was filed under Supreme 

Court Rule 23 and may not be cited 

as precedent by any party except in 

the limited circumstances allowed 

under Rule 23(e)(1). 

FILED

March 3, 2020 

Carla Bender

4th District Appellate

Court, IL
- 2 - 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In 2008, the parties’ mother passed away and the four siblings—counterplaintiff, 

counterdefendant, Sarah Quinton, and Curtis Rehtmeyer—each became owners of an undivided 

one-fourth interest of real property. The map below depicts the structures located in the Grove, 

including (A) the Deerwester house at 8042 E. 550 N. Road, (B) the Campbell house at 5509 

Maple Lane, (C) an antique store, (D) a railroad depot, (E) a township shed, and (F) grain bins. 

tJl 

t-.) 

w 

0 

' ' 

®@@@®®® 

-ft 

TtrT.-LGA0$3MU.11.0f'tlE,to,ca• UIIC:. 

fflOl'OSS>2 LOT a.e:cvm0li CiAO$SME>. • 122 ~ W:W:,M,'li,.~••im,c;. 

==~=:~ REw.1NIIC4JIICISJf!14111U,JC.l 

FID6IJIM3Nf/ii.lti!ICM>RlllY,• GMN:.> RDlANIIQ NEJ RA■ ?'JO It, 

1W; 

...,,.,_.,to 

l!,qralttol'locloco-04/20!7 

BXBlll?rl.h!,. 
- 3 - 

¶ 5 The siblings negotiated to separate their interests in the property. As part of these 

efforts, the siblings entered into an agreement in March 2011. In part, the agreement stated 

counterdefendant would receive two one-acre areas around the Deerwester and Campbell houses. 

The final line of the March 2011 agreement stated, “Said above real estate shall be valued and 

deducted equally against the value of any real estate received by Sarah Quinton and 

[counterplaintiff].” In May 2012, the siblings entered into another agreement, whereby Curtis 

Rehtmeyer severed his interest in the Grove. 

¶ 6 In June 2012, Quinton filed a complaint for partition of the property she owned as 

tenants in common with counterplaintiff and counterdefendant. Quinton subsequently conveyed 

her interest to counterplaintiff, leaving counterplaintiff with a two-thirds interest in the Grove. 

Quinton was dismissed from the partition action and counterplaintiff filed a counterclaim for 

partition to continue this case. 

¶ 7 In July 2016, the trial court entered an order determining the March 2011 

agreement was enforceable and stated “[counterdefendant] is granted ownership of [two] [one]-

acre parcels known as 8042 E. 550N Road and 5509 Maple Lane in ‘The Grove’ under the 

residences he currently owns.” In August 2016, the court clarified it made no ruling as to the 

specific dimensions of the one-acre parcels or the ownership of the two residences. The court 

further ruled the last sentence of the March 2011 agreement—“Said above real estate shall be 

valued and deducted equally against the value of any real estate received by Sarah Quinton and 

[counterplaintiff]”—was ambiguous and continued the matter for further litigation. 

¶ 8 A. Stipulations 

¶ 9 In July 2017, the parties stipulated that counterplaintiff waived any right to appeal 

the trial court’s ruling that counterdefendant owned two one-acre parcels surrounding the 
- 4 - 

residential structures known as 8042 E. 550 N. Road and 5509 Maple Lane. Counterplaintiff 

additionally stipulated the March 2011 agreement was enforceable. The parties stipulated 

counterdefendant “conveyed to [counterplaintiff] any and all interest he possesses in the real 

estate, with any improvements thereon,” the 0.61-acre lot where the antique store sat as part of 

her two-thirds interest in the Grove. Further, the parties stipulated it remained a question under 

the March 2011 agreement whether counterdefendant was entitled to the two one-acre parcels as 

part of his one-third interest in the Grove or in addition to his one-third interest. Finally, the 

parties stipulated counterdefendant would (1) “receive clear title to the structure commonly 

known as 8042 E. 550 N.Rd., McLean, Illinois and a One-Acre parcel of land surrounding the 

structure,” and (2) “receive clear title to the structure commonly known as 5509 Maple Lane, 

McLean, Illinois and a One-Acre [p]arcel of land surrounding the structure.” However, the 

parties disputed the boundaries of the one-acre parcels and the stipulation specifically stated the 

boundaries and the value of the one-acre parcels were subject to further order of the trial court. 

¶ 10 In August 2017, the parties filed another stipulation as to the testimony of W. 

Bradley Park and David A. Park, certified appraisers retained to appraise the value of the Grove. 

Regardless of the configuration of the one-acre lots, the one-acre lot and Deerwester house had a 

value of $47,000, and the one-acre lot and Campbell house had a value of $52,000. The 

remaining 8.54 acres of the Grove had a value of $84,000. The parties jointly offered the written 

appraisal into evidence at trial. The appraisal of the two one-acre lots took the value of the 

residential structures into account. The appraisal of the remaining property did not consider the 

value of any structures and determined the property had a value of $12,000 per acre. 

¶ 11 The parties further stipulated the director of the McLean County Department of 

Building and Zoning would testify that portions of the Grove were zoned for commercial and 
- 5 - 

residential use. The Grove could be re-zoned to create two parcels around the Deerwester and 

Campbell houses with the remainder constituting a third parcel. Alternatively, the remainder 

could be divided into two separate parcels. 

¶ 12 Finally, the parties stipulated that an engineer for the McLean County Highway 

Department inspected the Grove and would testify that the property currently had two entrances 

to the county highway. The first entrance was located at Maple Lane near the railroad tracks. 

The second entrance was located between the township shed and the railroad depot. The second 

entrance included a parking area for the antique store located across the county highway. The 

county highway department would allow the second entrance to be moved closer to the 

Deerwester house but would not permit a third entrance to be added. 

¶ 13 B. Trial

¶ 14 In August 2017, the matter proceeded to trial, where the trial court heard the 

following relevant evidence. 

¶ 15 1. William Wetzel

¶ 16 William Wetzel testified he was appointed commissioner of the partition action 

shortly after the case was filed. Wetzel opined the Grove could not be equitably divided without 

manifest prejudice to the parties. According to Wetzel, the parties had conflicting interests in the 

structures in the Grove and there were two sets of zoning regulations in effect. Specifically, 

Wetzel could not determine a fair partition regarding the one-acre lots around the Deerwester and 

Campbell residences. When he determined his inability to avoid manifest prejudice in 

partitioning the property, Wetzel lacked the benefit of the 2017 stipulations. Wetzel agreed that 

if the position of the parties had changed since he formed his opinion, that would make a 
- 6 - 

difference in whether or not the property could be partitioned without manifest prejudice to the 

parties. 

¶ 17 2. Rick Jannusch

¶ 18 Rick Jannusch testified he was married to counterplaintiff who owned a twothirds interest in the Grove. Jannusch opined an equitable division was impossible because the 

parties could not reach an agreement. For the division to be equitable to counterplaintiff, 

Jannusch testified, “She’s always owned the railroad depot, so she certainly would need to 

receive that. And the township shed is across from the antique store and she purchased Sarah 

Quinton’s ownership of Sarah’s interest in [t]he Grove, including the township shed. So those 

two buildings are very important and the land they are located on is very important.” 

Counterplaintiff would also need to receive compensation for two-thirds of the overall value of 

the Grove. Jannusch testified that, based on the appraisals, counterdefendant would receive more 

than his one-third interest if he received the two one-acre lots. According to Jannusch, if 

counterdefendant received his proposed one-acre lots, he would be required to reimburse 

counterplaintiff $26,000. 

¶ 19 Jannusch identified counterplaintiff’s exhibit No. 17 as a plat of the Grove with 

proposed one-acre lots around the Deerwester and Campbell houses (reproduced above). 

According to Jannusch, the proposed lots were unacceptable because the lot around the 

Deerwester house contained the railroad station that counterplaintiff owned. Additionally, 

Jannusch testified, “this drawing excludes all the right of way in gray south of the one-acre lots 

around the Deerwester’s house. It’s common knowledge that right of way goes with a parcel that 

a person owns, and so to exclude that wouldn’t be fair. That needs to be included in the one-acre 

lot.” Jannusch acknowledged it was possible, but not preferable, to move the railroad depot. 
- 7 - 

Jannusch testified, “The antique store and the railroad station are prominent features on the 

Route 66 tour. And they have become a fixture in Funks Grove. The location of the railroad 

depot is very important. People stop all the time, take photos at the railroad station *** [and] the 

antique store.” 

¶ 20 Jannusch identified counterplaintiff’s exhibit No. 13 as a map with proposed oneacre lots that included more of the right of way land and excluded the land under and around the 

train depot. Counterplaintiff’s exhibit No. 18 showed a map with proposed changes to remove 

the driveway shared by the railroad depot and the Deerwester house that would accommodate the 

lots as depicted in counterplaintiff’s exhibit No. 13. 

¶ 21 According to Jannusch, the family had a tradition “that some of the structures are 

owned by people that do not necessarily own the land underneath.” Counterplaintiff separately 

owned the railroad depot. Counterplaintiff’s father poured the concrete pad the railroad depot 

sits on and moved the depot to its present location in 1972. According to Jannusch, there was 

sentimental value to the railroad depot’s location. 

¶ 22 Jannusch testified he signed the March 2011 agreement and understood it to mean 

counterdefendant would receive the two-acre parcels as part of his one-third interest in the Grove 

and not in addition to his one-third interest. As part of the agreement, Jannusch received the 

right to farm certain acreage and he would not have done so if the two-acre parcels were in 

addition to counterdefendant’s one-third interest in the Grove. 

¶ 23 3. Counterplaintiff

¶ 24 Counterplaintiff testified she worried the Grove could not be equitably divided 

but a judicial sale was not her preference. To be satisfied with an equitable partition of the 

Grove, counterplaintiff required her two-thirds share to include the land with the antique store, 
- 8 - 

the railroad depot, and the township shed. Counterplaintiff’s testimony was consistent with 

Jannusch’s testimony regarding the disputes over the partition. Counterplaintiff testified moving 

the railroad depot was impractical based on expense and lack of room to move the depot. 

According to counterplaintiff, the grain bins were another problem because they were “back 

away from both of the residences and they need[ed] to go with one or the other house, or be 

removed.” Although not an impossibility, counterplaintiff did not want the grain bins removed. 

¶ 25 Counterplaintiff testified she purchased the township shed from her sister and “it 

had a lot of history for the area.” According to counterplaintiff, the township shed was part of a 

historical tourist attraction. Counterplaintiff acknowledged the area was not a designated 

historical site. Counterplaintiff agreed the railroad depot would retain its historical significance 

if it were moved. When asked about the concrete slab on which the depot sat, counterplaintiff 

testified, “It has a lot of memories. And I am not necessarily hung up on the concrete slab, but it 

does have a lot of memories. And if we could figure out how to move the concrete slab along 

with the depot and not us pay for that, then I will go with that.” 

¶ 26 4. Counterdefendant

¶ 27 Counterdefendant testified he referred to the Deerwester house as “8042 E.” 

According to counterdefendant, sharing a driveway with the railroad depot was difficult because 

access to the property was key. Counterdefendant was aware of the proposed relocation of a 

driveway for the Deerwester house, but testified it was implausible because the proposed 

driveway would cross the septic line from the house. Counterdefendant objected to redrawing 

the one-acre parcel surrounding the Deerwester house so it excluded the railroad depot. 

According to counterdefendant, redrawing the proposed lot posed numerous problems, including 

the septic system, the well for the property, and the driveway. The Deerwester property was 
- 9 - 

zoned commercial and the driveway accessed a public road, providing visibility and easy access 

to the commercial lot. 

¶ 28 Counterdefendant testified he received five acres from his parents in 1980. In 

1981, counterdefendant received an additional 35 acres from his parents. According to 

counterdefendant, he built a home which did not sit on the five acres his father gave him, so 

counterdefendant requested an additional two acres so his home would sit on the five acres. 

Counterdefendant testified his parents instead gave him 35 acres. 

¶ 29 If the court determined his proposed one-acre lot around the Deerwester house 

was appropriate, his first choice would be to move the railroad depot. However, 

counterdefendant would be willing to enter a lifetime lease with counterplaintiff that would 

encompass the railroad depot and the township shed. Counterdefendant acknowledged this 

would require the parties to share the driveway. 

¶ 30 5. Sarah Quinton

¶ 31 Quinton testified she understood the March 2011 agreement allowed 

counterdefendant to receive the two one-acre parcels and she and counterplaintiff would be 

compensated with additional property elsewhere. Quinton testified the two one-acre parcels 

constituted part of counterdefendant’s one-third share of the Grove. 

¶ 32 6. David Armstrong

¶ 33 David Armstrong testified he represented the Rehtmeyer family limited 

partnership. In February 2011, the siblings’ father passed away and Armstrong worked to 

distribute the real estate the siblings held as tenants in common. According to Armstrong, the 

March 2011 agreement arose from the siblings’ desire to dissolve the limited family partnership 

and distribute the real estate. Armstrong testified the Rehtmeyer parents gave Quinton, Curtis, 
- 10 - 

and counterplaintiff parcels of land that contained a house for them to live in. All three transfers 

came from the family limited partnership. Only counterdefendant had not received such a gift 

from his parents. As to the March 2011 agreement, Armstrong stated, “Well because 

[counterdefendant] was the only one who had never received any houses from his parents. And 

so everybody agreed that since he had given up interest in the [family limited partnership] for the 

other three siblings, that [counterdefendant] should get his acres that he did not receive during 

his parents’ life now.” The final sentence of the March 2011 agreement “was drafted because 

[counterdefendant] was to receive land, because he had given up land out of the [family limited 

partnership] to Sarah and [counterplaintiff.] So [counterdefendant] was to get the value of the 

land deducted from the portion that [counterplaintiff] and Sarah were to receive.” 

¶ 34 Armstrong testified the March 2011 agreement was written in terms of value 

rather than acreage because there were approximately 1500 acres of farmland to divide. 

Offsetting acres rather than value was problematic because not all the property had the same 

value. All the property had been appraised and all the property other than the Grove had been 

divided equally within $100 in value. The total value of the other land not including the Grove 

was valued between $11 or $12 million. Armstrong testified that the March 2011 agreement was 

not intended to provide that counterplaintiff and Quinton would be compensated for 

counterdefendant receiving the two one-acre lots in the Grove. 

¶ 35 C. Trial Court’s Ruling 

¶ 36 In May 2018, the trial court entered a written order finding the two one-acre lots 

constituted a portion of counterdefendant’s one-third interest in the Grove. The court noted the 

parties stipulated that counterplaintiff waived any right to appeal the court’s previous ruling that 

counterdefendant owned two one-acre parcels around the Deerwester and Campbell houses. The 
- 11 - 

parties further stipulated that counterdefendant would receive clear title to the structure 

commonly known as 8042 E. 550 North Road, 5509 Maple Lane, and the one acre parcels of 

land surrounding each structure. In determining the boundaries of the one-acre parcels, the court 

wrote as follows: 

“The [c]ourt finds that it is very difficult to divide the 

premises without prejudice to the owners, however, Judge Foley’s 

earlier ruling that awarded the residence and one acre parcels 

surrounding them to [counterdefendant] and the subsequent 

stipulation of the parties, would require the [c]ourt to ignore the 

prior order and stipulation if the [c]ourt ordered a sale. Therefore, 

the [c]ourt will divide the premises in question as opposed to 

ordering a sale of them.” 

The court agreed with Wetzel’s testimony that he could not recommend a partition that would 

divide the property without manifest prejudice; however, the court concluded the parties’ 

stipulation that counterdefendant would receive the two one-acre parcels prevented a judicial 

sale. 

¶ 37 The trial court awarded counterdefendant one-acre lots drawn as proposed by 

counterdefendant, finding there was no practical way to exclude the depot from the one-acre lot 

and still provide reasonable access to the public road. The court noted the one-acre parcel 

contained the railroad depot and gave counterplaintiff the option of either moving the depot or 

entering a lifetime lease of the premises including the depot and the township shed. The court 

adopted counterdefendant’s exhibit No. 18 and awarded a portion of the Grove where the 

Deerwester and Campbell houses stood to counterdefendant and awarded the remainder to 
- 12 - 

counterplaintiff. The court further adopted counterdefendant’s exhibit No. 16, which considered 

that the two one-acre parcels constituted a portion of counterdefendant’s one-third interest in the 

Grove. The court wrote, “[counterplaintiff] would receive land totaling $60,000 and 

[counterdefendant] would receive land totaling $48,000, so [counterdefendant] shall reimburse 

[counterplaintiff] $6,000 so that each would receive land worth $54,000.” 

¶ 38 In February 2019, the trial court amended its order following posttrial motions. 

The court noted the stipulations required counterdefendant receive the two one-acre parcels and 

awarded counterplaintiff two-thirds of the remainder of the Grove. The court adopted the same 

property line contained in the first order. The court further ordered counterplaintiff would 

receive land worth $60,000 and counterdefendant would receive land worth $48,000. 

¶ 39 This appeal followed. 

¶ 40 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 41 On appeal, counterplaintiff argues the trial court erred by (1) determining the 

value of two one-acre parcels without competent evidence, (2) not ordering a judicial sale of the 

Grove after determining the property could not be partitioned without manifest prejudice to the 

parties, (3) determining the boundary of one one-acre parcel contained certain structures, and 

(4) partitioning the Grove in a way that was manifestly prejudicial to counterplaintiff.

¶ 42 An action for partition is equitable in nature. Rothert v. Rothert, 109 Ill. App. 3d 

911, 916, 441 N.E.2d 179, 182 (1982). “[T]he reason for partition is to enable those who own 

property in common to sever their interests so that one may take possession of and enjoy and 

improve his separate estate at his own pleasure and convenience.” Stegeman v. Smith, 67 Ill. 

App. 2d 451, 457, 214 N.E.2d 597, 601 (1966). In pertinent part, the Partition Act provides as 

follows: 
- 13 - 

“After entry of judgment adjudicating the rights, titles, and 

interests of the parties, the court upon further hearing shall 

determine whether or not the premises or any part thereof can be 

divided among the parties without manifest prejudice to the parties 

in interest. If the court finds that a division can be made, then the 

court shall enter further judgment fairly and impartially dividing 

the premises among the parties with or without owelty. If the court 

finds that the whole or any part of the premises sought to be 

partitioned cannot be divided without manifest prejudice to the 

owners thereof, then the court shall order the premises not 

susceptible of division to be sold at public sale in such manner and 

upon such terms and notice of sale as the court directs.” 735 ILCS 

5/17-105 (West 2018). 

The right to partition does not yield to any hardship, inconvenience, or difficulty. Rosenbaum v. 

Rosenbaum, 38 Ill. App. 3d 1, 15, 349 N.E.2d 73, 83 (1976). “The law favors a division of land 

in kind, rather than a division of proceeds from a sale of the land and, therefore, an unequal 

division with owelty is preferred over a sale of the premises.” Rothert, 109 Ill. App. 3d at 916. 

¶ 43 A. Standard of Review 

¶ 44 Counterplaintiff contends this court should review the trial court’s judgment 

de novo where the evidence was submitted through written stipulations and jointly offered 

documentary exhibits. In re Zion M., 2015 IL App (1st) 151119, ¶ 28, 47 N.E.3d 252. 

Counterdefendant disagrees and argues this court must determine whether the trial court’s 

judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Silas v. Robinson, 131 Ill. App. 3d 
- 14 - 

1058, 1061, 477 N.E.2d 4, 6-7 (1985) (holding that partition actions are reviewed under a 

manifest weight of the evidence standard). 

¶ 45 Ordinarily, this court would determine whether the trial court’s determination of 

value was against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Estate of Lambrecht, 375 Ill. App. 

3d 865, 871, 874 N.E.2d 170, 175-76 (2007). A finding is against the manifest weight of the 

evidence only where the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent. Zion M., 2015 IL App (1st) 

151119, ¶ 27. Because the trial court is in the best position to observe the witnesses, assess 

credibility, and weigh the evidence, the trial court is vested with wide discretion. Id. 

¶ 46 When a finding is based solely on stipulations or documentary evidence, the trial 

court is not in a better position than the reviewing court to assess credibility or weigh the 

evidence. Id. ¶ 28. In such circumstances, we review a trial court’s decision de novo. Id.

¶ 47 We note counterplaintiff cites numerous cases regarding review of a trial court’s 

decision on a motion to reconsider (735 ILCS 5/2-1203 (West 2018)). However, counterplaintiff 

fails to raise any contentions of error related to the court’s denial of her motion to reconsider. 

Accordingly, we discuss the standards of review applicable to the claims she raises.

¶ 48 B. Value of One-Acre Parcels

¶ 49 Counterplaintiff first contends the trial court’s valuation of the two one-acre lots 

was unsupported by the stipulated evidence. As such, counterplaintiff contends our review of 

this issue is de novo. 

¶ 50 As counterdefendant correctly points out, the trial court did not base its decision 

solely on stipulations or documentary evidence. The trial court held a two-day bench trial during 

which it heard from numerous witnesses regarding the issues. While it may be true the parties 

stipulated to the admission of the appraisal report for the Grove, they did not stipulate to the 
- 15 - 

value of the one-acre lots. Moreover, the trial court’s finding of the value of the one-acre lots 

makes sense considering the evidence heard during trial. Accordingly, we must determine 

whether the trial court’s finding of the value of the one-acre lots was against the manifest weight 

of the evidence. Lambrecht, 375 Ill. App. 3d at 871. 

¶ 51 Counterplaintiff argues the trial court ignored the appraisal the parties stipulated 

to admit into evidence. The appraisal determined that, regardless of the configuration of the oneacre lots, the one-acre lot and Deerwester house had a value of $47,000, and the one-acre lot and 

Campbell house had a value of $52,000. The remaining property in the Grove had a value of 

$84,000. The appraisal of the two one-acre lots took the value of the residential structures into 

account. The appraisal of the remaining property did not consider the value of any structures and 

determined the property had a value of $12,000 per acre. 

¶ 52 The parties further stipulated counterdefendant “conveyed to [counterplaintiff] 

any and all interest he possesses in the real estate, with any improvements thereon,” the 0.61-acre 

lot where the antique store sat as part of her two-thirds interest in the Grove. The parties 

stipulated counterdefendant would (1) “receive clear title to the structure commonly known as 

8042 E. 550 N.Rd., McLean, Illinois and a One-Acre parcel of land surrounding the structure,” 

and (2) “receive clear title to the structure commonly known as 5509 Maple Lane, McLean, 

Illinois and a One-Acre [p]arcel of land surrounding the structure.” However, the parties 

disputed the boundaries of the one-acre parcels and the stipulation specifically stated the 

boundaries and the value of the one-acre parcels were subject to further order of the trial court.

¶ 53 Read together, these stipulations make clear the parties did not stipulate to the 

value of the one-acre lots. The appraisal itself indicated that, regardless of configuration, the 

value of the lots around the Deerwester and Campbell houses was $47,000 and $52,000, 
- 16 - 

respectively. The appraisal also valued the remaining useable acres in the Grove at $84,000—

$12,000 per acre. As counterdefendant points out, the only way the value of the Deerwester and 

Campbell lots would have been the same regardless of the configuration of the lots is if the 

acreage in the Grove had a consistent value. 

¶ 54 Moreover, compare the language of the parties’ stipulation regarding the lot with 

the antique store (“the real estate, with any improvements thereon”) with the language regarding 

the two one-acre lots (counterdefendant would “receive clear title to the structure commonly 

known as 8042 E. 550 N.Rd., McLean, Illinois and a One-Acre parcel of land surrounding the 

structure”). This indicates the parties’ intention to treat the value of the land separately from the 

value of the structures on the land. Additionally, this view is supported by testimony at trial. 

The family had a tradition of treating structures separately from the land upon which they sat—

indeed, multiple witnesses testified counterplaintiff owned the railroad depot but not the land 

beneath it and counterplaintiff testified she purchased her sister’s interest in the township shed. 

Moreover, the stipulation specifically stated the value of the one-acre parcels was subject to 

further order from the trial court. 

¶ 55 Contrary to counterplaintiff’s argument, the trial court’s finding that the one-acre 

parcels were valued at $12,000 is supported by evidence in the record. Specifically, the appraisal 

determined the useable acreage in the Grove was worth $12,000 per acre. We acknowledge that 

usually the appraisal of real property considers any improvements thereon, as the appraisal in 

this case did for the one-acre lots and the Deerwester and Campbell houses. However, the 

circumstances of this case are unusual and support the trial court’s determination to value all the 

acreage without considering the structures thereon. As mentioned before, the parties have an 

unusual family tradition of gifting or owning structures and counterplaintiff never contested 
- 17 - 

counterdefendant’s ownership of the Deerwester and Campbell structures. Accordingly, we 

conclude the trial court’s finding that the one-acre parcels surrounding the Deerwester and 

Campbell houses were each worth $12,000 was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

¶ 56 C. Judicial Sale

¶ 57 Counterplaintiff next contends the trial court erred by failing to order a judicial 

sale of the Grove after explicitly determining that the Grove could not be partitioned without 

manifest prejudice to either of the parties. Counterdefendant asserts this mischaracterizes the 

trial court’s order and the court in fact found it could equitably divide the Grove without 

manifest prejudice to either party.

¶ 58 Although the trial court noted the commissioner testified he did not believe the 

property could be equitably divided, the trial court considered the circumstances as they existed 

at the time the court faced dividing the property. The trial court acknowledged the difficulty of 

equitably dividing the property but managed to do so. The root of counterplaintiff’s manifest 

prejudice here was her desire to keep the railroad depot in the location chosen by her father in the 

1970s and to be able to use the area near the township shed for overflow parking from the 

antique store. The testimony established these structures were sentimental to counterplaintiff but 

not of particular value—indeed, counsel for counterdefendant described the township shed as “an 

old junk garage ready to fall over.” We acknowledge counterplaintiff’s desire to preserve the 

local history of Funks Grove. However, the trial court’s ruling enables counterplaintiff to 

preserve the railroad depot’s location, at least through her lifetime should she choose to exercise 

the lifetime lease under the terms of the order. Alternatively, the trial court explicitly determined 

counterplaintiff owned the railroad depot and could move it to another location if she so chose. 

Moreover, the testimony established that any other configuration of the one-acre parcel around 
- 18 - 

the Deerwester house was impractical and counterplaintiff had expressly stipulated 

counterdefendant owned a one-acre lot. 

¶ 59 Furthermore, counterplaintiff cannot complain that the trial court took the parties’ 

stipulations and the prior court orders seriously, particularly where she argues the trial court 

should have awarded the two one-acre parcels to counterdefendant and ordered the judicial sale 

of the remainder. This would have resulted in counterdefendant receiving his two lots and 

counterplaintiff losing any ownership interest in the remaining land. At least under the terms of 

the trial court’s partition order counterplaintiff may elect to keep the depot where it is during her 

lifetime, or she may elect to move it to another location of her choosing. 

¶ 60 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the trial court ultimately determined the 

Grove could be equitably divided without manifest prejudice to either party. Here, the court’s 

order shows it carefully divided the property with a particular eye toward fairness to both parties 

and with a particular sensitivity to counterplaintiff’s sentimental attachments to the railroad 

depot and the township shed. 

¶ 61 D. Boundary of One-Acre Parcel

¶ 62 Counterplaintiff next argues the trial court erred by not reading any ambiguity in 

the March 2011 agreement against counterdefendant in determining the boundary of the lot 

around the Deerwester house. We disagree.

¶ 63 First, the March 2011 agreement does not address the boundaries of the two oneacre parcels. Thus, as to the boundary, there is no ambiguity to read against counterdefendant. 

Moreover, the evidence established that any other configuration of this lot would be impractical. 

Although the parties stipulated to testimony that another entrance to the Deerwester house could 

be added, conflicting evidence at trial established the difficulty in doing so. Additionally, as 
- 19 - 

noted above, the court’s determination that it could equitably divide the property without 

manifest prejudice to either party was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

Counterplaintiff retained her interest in the depot and could move the depot if she wished. The 

right to partition will not yield to any hardship, inconvenience, or difficulty. Rosenbaum, 38 Ill. 

App. 3d at 15. 

¶ 64 E. Partition

¶ 65 Finally, counterplaintiff asserts the trial court erred in adopting 

counterdefendant’s proposed partition of the remainder of the Grove. Counterdefendant drew an 

arbitrary line across the entire parcel to be divided and proposed he receive everything south of 

the line while counterplaintiff received everything north of the line. Counterdefendant argues 

that counterplaintiff failed to provide the trial court with any alternative to this proposal. Our 

review of the record shows counterplaintiff proposed alternate boundaries for the one-acre lots, 

but she failed to offer any alternative evidence to divide the remainder of the Grove. 

Accordingly, we conclude counterplaintiff has failed to meet her burden of proof. Moreover, as 

discussed above, counterplaintiff reprises her arguments about manifest prejudice with respect to 

the depot and the township shed, but we have concluded she cannot establish that the partition 

resulted in manifest prejudice. 

¶ 66 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 67 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

¶ 68 Affirmed.