2019 IL App (1st) 190660
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Plaintiffs Victor and Eliath Mazal purchased a Lincolnwood home in 2016 and sought to quiet title to a 16-foot strip running between their backyard and defendants’ after defendants bought the adjoining lot.
- A 1927 recorded plat showed the strip as a statutorily dedicated public alleyway vested in the municipality (then Tessville/Lincolnwood).
- Plaintiffs alleged decades of exclusive use (a play set within two feet of a fence) and claimed the alley never functioned as public and thus limitations ran against the Village earlier.
- The Village adopted Ordinance No. 2008-2787 vacating the alleyway in 2008 and vesting title in abutting owners in eight-foot portions.
- The trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ verified complaint under section 2-619(a)(9), holding the strip was dedicated public property held in trust, the 20-year limitations period did not run against the Village until the 2008 vacation, and plaintiffs could not meet the 20-year requirement; a motion to reconsider (relying on 2008 meeting materials calling the alleys "paper alleys") was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 20-year limitations period for adverse possession/prescriptive easement ran against the Village before 2008 | Mazal: the alley never functioned as public, so limitations ran earlier and plaintiffs have 20 years of use | Pinto: the strip was a statutorily dedicated public alley held in trust for public use, so limitations did not run against the Village until it vacated in 2008 | Court: limitations did not run against the Village; statutory dedication keeps property in public trust until vacation (vacation occurred 2008) |
| Whether a dedicated public alleyway can be subject to adverse possession because it was never developed or used | Mazal: nonuse means no public use; thus adverse possession can run | Pinto: nonuse is immaterial; statutory dedication alone establishes public use | Court: nondevelopment/nonuse is immaterial; a platted, dedicated, and accepted alley remains public use and cannot be adversely possessed |
| Whether plaintiffs showed new evidence warranting reconsideration (that Village abandoned interest earlier) | Mazal: Request and meeting minutes show the alley was a "paper alley" and therefore abandoned before 2008 | Pinto: those documents do not change that statutory dedication vested title in the public until formal vacation | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion; the materials merely note nonuse and do not show abandonment of the dedication |
Key Cases Cited
- Joiner v. Janssen, 85 Ill. 2d 74 (explaining the 20-year limitations period applies to adverse possession and prescriptive easement)
- Kean v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 235 Ill. 2d 351 (standard of review for section 2-615/2-619 dismissals)
- 527 S. Clinton, LLC v. Westloop Equities, LLC, 403 Ill. App. 3d 42 (elements of adverse possession)
- Miller v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, 374 Ill. App. 3d 188 (limitations does not run against municipal property held in trust for public use)
- General Auto Service Station v. Maniatis, 328 Ill. App. 3d 537 (statutory dedication vests fee in the public)
- Emalfarb v. Krater, 266 Ill. App. 3d 243 (acceptance of dedication creates an express charitable trust for public use)
- Bigelow v. City of Rolling Meadows, 372 Ill. App. 3d 60 (Plat Act compliance required to effect statutory dedication)
- Zemple v. Butler, 17 Ill. 2d 434 (circumstances in which municipal nonuse can create estoppel to assert street rights)
- Wanless v. Wraight, 202 Ill. App. 3d 750 (distinguishing schoolhouse/parking-lot style holdings from statutorily dedicated public ways)
- McNeil v. Ketchens, 397 Ill. App. 3d 375 (tacking of possession/privity principles)