Deboe v. Flick

• Decision Date: 14 July 1988
• Docket Number: No. 5-87-0323,5-87-0323
• Citation: 172 Ill.App.3d 673,526 N.E.2d 913,122 Ill.Dec. 520
• Parties: , 122 Ill.Dec. 520 Robert DEBOE and Hattie Deboe, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. James FLICK and Pamela Flick, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 913

526 N.E.2d 913

172 Ill.App.3d 673, 122 Ill.Dec. 520

Robert DEBOE and Hattie Deboe, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. James FLICK and Pamela Flick, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 5-87-0323.

Appellate Court of Illinois,

Fifth District.

July 14, 1988.

Neubauer and Heise, Fairview Heights, for defendants-appellants.

Lechien & Associates, Ltd., Belleville, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Justice KARNS delivered the opinion of the court:

James and Pamela Flick, defendants, (the Flicks) appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of St. Clair County granting a prescriptive easement in favor of Robert and Hattie Deboe, plaintiffs, (the Deboes) and entering a permanent injunction against them from interfering with the Deboes' use of this easement. The court further ordered the removal of a 90 foot chain link fence erected by the Flicks on the property in question. We reverse.

The Deboes and the Flicks are next door neighbors, with the Deboes residing at 420 North Church Street in Belleville, Illinois, and the Flicks at 426 North Church Street. The Deboes purchased their house in March of 1974. Their predecessor in title, Howard and Myrtle Viehman, resided in the same residence from the 1940s till the time they sold it to the Deboes. The Flicks purchased their home in February 1984. Their immediate predecessor in title was Dennis Hermann who lived in the house from March of 1970.

Between the Flicks' and the Deboes' properties is a double wide driveway. In October 1985, the Flicks erected a chain link fence approximately 10 inches inside their property line down the length of the driveway. The south side of the Deboe house is eight feet from this property line. The Deboes found that the fence obstructed their use of the side of their house for parking and for ingress and egress to the back of their house. The Deboes therefore instituted this suit to have a prescriptive easement declared on a portion of the Flicks' driveway.

The Flicks argue on appeal that the trial court's decision finding a prescriptive easement in favor of the Deboes is against the manifest weight of the evidence. We agree with the Flicks' contention.

In order to acquire an easement by prescription, the party claiming such a prescriptive right must show that the use of the land was adverse, exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted, and under claim of right for a period of at least 20 years. (Schultz v. Kant (2d Dist.1986), 148 Ill.App.3d 565, 569, 101 Ill.Dec. 764, 768, 499 N.E.2d 131, 135; Healy v. Roberts (1st Dist.1982), 109 Ill.App.3d 577, 579, 64 Ill.Dec. 927, 929, 440 N.E.2d 647, 649.) The burden of establishing a prescriptive right rests on the party claiming it, and all elements must be distinctly and clearly proved. (Monroe v. Shrake (1941), 376 Ill. 253, 257, 33 N.E.2d 459, 461; Schultz, 148 Ill.App.3d at 569, 101 Ill.Dec. at 768, 499 N.E.2d at 135.) The Deboes established neither that their use of the driveway was adverse nor that it was for a continuous period of 20 years.

To meet the requirement of adverse use, the claimant must show that the use of the property or way was with the knowledge and acquiescence of the owner but without his permission. (Light v. Steward (2d Dist.1984), 128 Ill.App.3d 587, 591, 83 Ill.Dec. 760, 764, 470 N.E.2d 1180, 1184; Healy, 109 Ill.App.3d at 579-80, 64 Ill.Dec. at 929-30, 440 N.E.2d at 649-50.) Mere permission to use the land can never ripen into a prescriptive right, regardless of the length of time such permissive use is enjoyed. (Poulos v. F.H. Hill Co. (1948), 401 Ill. 204, 214, 81 N.E.2d 854, 859; Lang v. Dupuis (1943), 382 Ill. 101, 107-09, 46 N.E.2d 21, 24-25; Evanik v. Janus (4th Dist.1983), 120 Ill.App.3d 475, 485, 76 Ill.Dec. 308, 314, 458 N.E.2d 962, 968.) Permissive use negates not only the adversity element of a prescriptive easement claim but also that the usage took place under a claim of right. See Klobucar v. Stancik, (1st Dist.1985), 138 Ill.App.3d 342, 344, 93 Ill.Dec. 124, 126, 485 N.E.2d 1334, 1336; Light, 128 Ill.App.3d at 595, 83 Ill.Dec. at 771, 470 N.E.2d at 1187.

Dennis Hermann, the Flicks' immediate predecessor in title, testified he often saw the Deboes use the driveway and that they would come a foot or so onto his property. He further stated he told the Deboes that "certainly they were welcome to use [his driveway] and park there." While he later agreed on redirect that he acquiesced in the Deboes' use of his property, acquiescence is always to be found in a permissive use. (See Monroe, 376 Ill. at 257, 33 N.E.2d at 461.) His testimony that he gave direct permission to the Deboes, however, was never rebutted. Such permission destroys any claim of prescriptive rights.

Even if we were to ignore Dennis Hermann's testimony, the Deboes still did not establish continuous adverse use for over 20 years. The Deboes purchased their house in 1974. While periods of use may be tacked together in order to satisfy the required prescription period (see Light, 128 Ill.App.3d at 594, 83 Ill.Dec. at 770, 470 N.E.2d at 1186), the Deboes' predecessor in title, Myrtle Viehman, did not testify to using the neighboring property. Mrs. Viehman repeatedly stated in various ways her husband only parked on their side of the property line and they would not trespass on the neighbor's side of the driveway. Assuming Mrs. Viehman's testimony is not credible because of the inference that the trucks her husband drove and parked on the side of the house were wider than could be accommodated on their property, she also alluded to the fact of some sort of agreement between her husband and the neighbors. We note that evidence of a neighborly relationship gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of permissive use. (See Healy, 109 Ill.App.3d at 581, 64 Ill.Dec. at 930, 440 N.E.2d at 650.) She further stated her husband stopped using the trucks prior to selling the house to the Deboes. They still drove a car but only occasionally parked or drove along the side of the house and certainly did not cross over the property line. There simply was no evidence of any use of the neighbor's driveway after her husband stopped using trucks. Therefore, no testimony on the record before us supports continuous adverse use for a period of over 20 years. Adverse possession cannot be made out by mere inference or implication. ( Poulos, 401 Ill. at 213, 81 N.E.2d at 857.) We find the trial court's decision granting an easement by prescription in favor of the Deboes was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The Deboes contend, however, the Flicks admitted adverse use for a period of twenty years by failing to properly or timely file a response to their request to admit facts. In general, under Supreme ...