J&A Cantore, LP v. Village of Villa Park
2017 IL App (2d) 160601
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff J&A Cantore, LP owns property at 711 S. Route 83; a 58-ft strip east of its lot (the "disputed property") was partly in Villa Park (25 ft) and partly in Elmhurst (33 ft).
- The 1925 H.O. Stone Addition plat shows a 33-ft north–south strip labeled "West Avenue" abutting the subject lots; a 1910 plat shows a complementary 25-ft strip on the Villa Park side.
- Elmhurst annexed parts of the H.O. Stone Addition (1962), later vacated certain intersecting streets (1968), and acquired adjacent fee title (1974); it also leased portions (including the disputed area) to the Elmhurst Park District (1983, 1995).
- Plaintiff enclosed the disputed strip with a fence in the 1980s, stored vehicles there, and claimed title by adverse possession after acquiring the parcel in 2014; Elmhurst removed the fence in 2014.
- Plaintiff sued for ejectment and injunctive relief; the trial court granted Elmhurst’s section 2-619 motion, finding statutory dedication and municipal acceptance of West Avenue and dismissing counts against Elmhurst with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Elmhurst’s portion of the disputed strip was statutorily dedicated as a public street | The H.O. Stone plat lacks express dedication language; mere labeling is insufficient to create statutory dedication | The 1925 plat (H.O. Stone Addition) meets the Plat Act formalities and the depiction and naming of West Avenue manifest an intention to dedicate | Court: Statutory dedication established from the plat’s face; Elmhurst holds fee simple to its portion |
| Whether there was common-law dedication of West Avenue | (Contended but secondary) Plaintiff argued no clear intent to dedicate by acts | Elmhurst pointed to acts and subsequent municipal treatment supporting dedication | Court: Because statutory dedication found, common-law dedication need not be reached |
| Whether Elmhurst accepted the dedication | Plaintiff: Elmhurst did not take affirmative, timely acts of acceptance; leasing/parking use by plaintiff undermines acceptance | Elmhurst: Acceptance shown by annexation, improvement/maintenance of other platted streets, 1968 vacation (excluding West Ave), fee acquisitions and leases to Park District | Court: Acceptance (implied and by later acts) was established; improvements and municipal acts support acceptance |
| Whether the property is for "public use" (so adverse possession statute does not run) | Plaintiff: Current use as a local park/park-district lease is purely local and not a statewide public use; at most local use that permits adverse possession | Elmhurst: Dedicated as street (public use); lease to park district was with right of reentry and park/Greenways trail serves public at large | Court: The strip is public property (dedicated street and part of a public trail/park); adverse possession cannot run against it |
Key Cases Cited
- Bigelow v. City of Rolling Meadows, 372 Ill. App. 3d 60 (App. Ct.) (plat marks must show intent to dedicate; context matters if unincorporated)
- Thompson v. Maloney, 199 Ill. 276 (Ill.) (half‑width strip around plat supports inference of dedication)
- Kennedy v. Town of Normal, 359 Ill. 306 (Ill.) (plat face can demonstrate dedicatory intent even without explicit words)
- Brown v. Trustees of Schools, 224 Ill. 184 (Ill.) (definition of "public use" for adverse‑possession purposes: statewide/public interest vs. local use)
- Miller v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, 374 Ill. App. 3d 188 (App. Ct.) (leased public land with right of reentry retains public character; not subject to adverse possession)