Court Opinion

ID: 9717206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:00:07.429349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:52.028122
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WELCH dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I would hold that plaintiffs did not prove their 20-year possession of the disputed triangle by “clear and unequivocal evidence.” Martin v. My Farm, Inc. (1983), 111 Ill. App. 3d 1097, 1103, 445 N.E.2d 44, 48. The critical question of fact at trial was when the Nowaks began to “possess” the disputed area by beginning construction of their driveway. Mr. James apparent deposition testimony that work on the drive-in theater began in 1963 and that the drive-in theater opened for business on February 7, 1964, is uncontradicted (no transcript of James’ deposition appears of record). Plaintiff rely on Mrs. Nowak’s testimony, which the trial court expressly found more convincing than Mr. Nowak’s. The crucial colloquy during her direct examination was as follows: “Q. In relation to when the drive-in was built or finished, can you tell us when the garage was built? A. Right at about the same time to the best of my recollection. Q. Would you say that the garage was there before the fence was put up? A. Before the drive-in fence was put up? Q. Yes, the drive-in fence, excuse me. A. I think so. Q. Now, when the garage was put up, was the driveway-constructed at the same time? A. Yes. * * * Q. Mrs. Nowak, did this drive-in movie provide speakers for the neighbors? A. Yes, they did. Q. Did they put those speakers in when they were building the drive-in? A. Yes. Q. Where is the speaker located on your property? A. It is located — let’s see. At the back of the lot near really close to the garage. Q. Do you know if this speaker was placed in after your garage was there? A. I would think it would have had to have been.” Her cross-examination included the following: “Q. As you sit here today, Mrs. Nowak, do you know for sure when that garage was constructed? A. I can’t tell you positively, no. In my best recollection it was there when the drive-in was completed but that is recollection.” Our supreme court has stated that where a party claims title to land by adverse possession, “[t]he burden of proof is demanding, and the evidence must be unequivocal.” (Beard v. Henn (1963), 28 Ill. 2d 11, 15, 190 N.E.2d 345, 347.) Presumptions are in favor of the title owner. (Joiner v. Janssen (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 74, 81, 421 N.E.2d 170, 174.) I find Mrs. Nowak’s testimony equivocal at best regarding the time of the Nowaks’ construction of the driveway. Granted, it is for the trial court to decide which witness to believe in a bench trial. However, I do not believe that the trier of fact may form an unequivocal conclusion based on evidence which is equivocal at best. Therefore, I would reverse the judgment of the circuit court with respect to the adverse possession issue, and remand for decision of the remaining issues in the case.