Nationwide Financial, L.P. v. Pobuda
2014 IL 116717
| Ill. | 2014Background
- Nationwide owned the 275 Donlea Road property; Pobudas owned adjacent 281 Donlea Road since 1986.
- Northwest corner strip (33×48 feet) of the 275 property is disputed and lies near Donlea Road with a 609-foot gravel road easement serving both lots.
- A shared 66-foot-wide by 609-foot-long easement (1956) provided access; additional utility easement (1957) affected 281 but not challenged here.
- Pobudas allege open, continuous use across the strip since 1986 for access, deliveries, utilities, repairs, and maintenance; Mayworm (281 owner 1971–1986) corroborates long-term use.
- Mayworm testified the route was the only access, that she used and maintained it, and never was informed permission was required.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment to Nationwide on prescriptive easement claims; appellate court affirmed; this court overrules and holds Pobudas established exclusivity and adversity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusivity requires total dispossession of the owner | Nationwide: exclusivity requires owner dispossession. | Pobudas: exclusivity means absence of a like right in others, not full dispossession. | Exclusivity does not require total dispossession; establishing exclusive use is sufficient. |
| Whether adversity can be presumed from long, open use when origin is unknown | Nationwide: adversity must be shown, not presumed. | Pobudas: Rush presumes right from long acquiescence when origin unknown. | Adversity can be established even if origin is unknown; presumption from long acquiescence applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Petersen v. Corrubia, 21 Ill. 2d 525 (Ill. 1961) (exclusivity defined for prescriptive easement)
- Rush v. Collins, 366 Ill. 307 (Ill. 1937) (long acquiescence creates presumption of grant/adverse right)
- Schmidt v. Brown, 226 Ill. 590 (Ill. 1907) (exclusive use may exist even with others using the way)
- Leesch v. Krause, 393 Ill. 124 (Ill. 1946) (exclusive use despite owner’s continued use across multiple tracts)
- Look v. Bruninga, 348 Ill. 183 (Ill. 1932) (exclusive use can coexist with owner’s use)
- McKenzie v. Elliott, 134 Ill. 156 (Ill. 1890) (owner’s use does not defeat easement exclusivity)
- Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 2011 IL App (1st) 102389 (1st Dist. Ill. App. 2011) (strict exclusivity line adopted by some districts questioned here)
- Chicago Steel Rule Die & Fabricators Co. v. Malan Construction Co., 199 Ill. App. 3d 701 (Ill. App. 1990) (exclusivity understood in prescriptive easements; conflict with adverse possession view)
- City of Des Plaines v. Redella, 365 Ill. App. 3d 68 (Ill. App. 2006) (prescriptive easement principles; exclusivity scope)
- Towle v. Quante, 246 Ill. 568 (Ill. 1910) (adverse possession basis; not controlling for prescriptive easements)
- Rose v. Farmington, 196 Ill. 226 (Ill. 1902) (adversity criterion; use as right not a license)
- Monroe v. Shrake, 376 Ill. 253 (Ill. 1941) (vacant land presumption of permissive use; distinguishable)
- Piper v. Warren, 61 Ill. App. 2d 460 (Ill. App. 1965) (origin of use shown; distinguishes permissive origin)
- Deboe v. Flick, 172 Ill. App. 3d 673 (Ill. App. 1988) (permissive origin shown by express permission)
- Castle v. Yenerich, 95 Ill. App. 3d 39 (Ill. App. 1981) (neighborly relationship may show permissive origin; distinguishable)