Urbaitis v. Commonwealth Edison

Citation143 Ill.2d 458,575 N.E.2d 548,159 Ill.Dec. 50
Decision Date20 June 1991
Docket NumberNos. 69216,69237,s. 69216
Parties, 159 Ill.Dec. 50 Richard URBAITIS, et al., Appellants and Appellees, v. COMMONWEALTH EDISON, et al., Appellees and Appellants.
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

Page 548

575 N.E.2d 548
143 Ill.2d 458, 159 Ill.Dec. 50
Richard URBAITIS, et al., Appellants and Appellees,
v.
COMMONWEALTH EDISON, et al., Appellees and Appellants.
Nos. 69216, 69237.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
June 20, 1991.

Page 549

[143 Ill.2d 462] [159 Ill.Dec. 51] Richard L. Cooper, Stephen M. Cooper, Peter M. Storm and Marc E. Webbles, Geneva, for appellants and appellees.

Joseph H. Barnett, Bernard K. Weiler, Irving Ochsenschlager and Constance B. Renzi, Aurora, for appellee and appellant Commonwealth Edison.

Patrick M. Kinnally, Aurora, and Stephen Sullivan, Batavia, for appellee and appellant Kane County Forest Preserve District.

Justice BILANDIC delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendants in the circuit court of Kane County to quiet title to a parcel of real estate located in Geneva, Illinois. Both parties claim title through a 1909 deed from Benjamin W. Dodson to the Chicago, Wheaton & Western Railway.

A fee simple title is the highest form of estate in land that can be conveyed by a grantor. (E. Grigsby, Illinois Real Property § 16 (1948).) A grant of an easement is a substantially lesser estate in land which merely permits a grantee to use a portion of the land for a limited purpose without conveying title to the grantee. E. Grigsby, Illinois Real Property § 2351 (1948).

At issue in this case is a parcel of land in Kane County which is 100 feet wide and 2,713 feet long. Plaintiffs' second-amended complaint alleged ownership of this parcel

Page 550

[159 Ill.Dec. 52] of real estate as successors to the interest of Benjamin Dodson and as adjoining landowners. Defendants,[143 Ill.2d 463] Commonwealth Edison and Kane County Forest Preserve District, moved to dismiss pursuant to section 2--615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 110, par. 2--615). The trial court determined from plaintiffs' complaint, and the Dodson deed that was incorporated therein, that the deed conveyed an estate in fee simple to the railroad. Therefore, defendant Commonwealth Edison acquired a fee simple estate in the chain of title that followed. In addition, the trial court determined that defendant Forest Preserve District is lawfully using the land by a grant of an easement from defendant Commonwealth Edison. Plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

The appellate court held that the circuit court erred in dismissing plaintiffs' complaint, because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the use of the land after 1946. However, in its remand order, the appellate court determined that the Dodson deed conveyed an estate in fee simple to the railroad. 185 Ill.App.3d 616, 132 Ill.Dec. 612, 540 N.E.2d 352.

On rehearing, the appellate court majority reconfirmed its previous opinion and judgment. However, one justice revised his original position. His dissent concluded that it was error to remand for further proceedings because the court unanimously decided that the Dodson deed conveyed title in fee simple. This unanimous action concluded the controversy dealing with ownership of the land. The dissent reasoned that the use of the property after 1946 was not relevant in this case, because plaintiffs did not allege ownership of the parcel of land through adverse possession. 185 Ill.App.3d at 623-24, 132 Ill.Dec. 612, 540 N.E.2d 352 (Lindberg, J., dissenting).

Plaintiffs filed a petition for leave to appeal the appellate court's finding that the Dodson deed conveyed title in fee simple. Defendants filed a petition for leave to appeal the appellate court's decision to remand this case [143 Ill.2d 464] for further proceedings. We allowed both petitions (134 Ill.2d R. 315), and consolidated the causes on appeal.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, all well-pleaded facts are taken as true. (Chicago Health Clubs, Inc. v. Picur (1988), 124 Ill.2d 1, 7, 124 Ill.Dec. 87, 528 N.E.2d 978.) Plaintiffs' second-amended complaint alleges that in 1909, Benjamin Dodson was the owner of a tract of land located in Geneva, Illinois, which included a certain parcel measuring 100 feet in width and 2,713 feet in length. In that year, the Chicago, Wheaton & Western Railway Company (CW & W) filed a condemnation action against Dodson seeking to acquire that parcel of land for the purpose of constructing and operating its railroad. Prior to trial in the condemnation action, the parties settled and Dodson conveyed the parcel of land to CW & W. Construction of the Dodson deed is critical to the determination of this case. CW & W subsequently conveyed the land to its successor, the Chicago, Aurora & Elgin Railway Company (CA & E). The land was used for railway purposes until 1946, when CA & E ceased operations of its railway lines on the parcel and removed its rails. On March 1, 1946, CA & E conveyed its interest in the land by quitclaim deed to Western United Gas & Electric Company, which subsequently conveyed its interest to its successor, defendant Commonwealth Edison. Commonwealth Edison currently uses the land for its overhead power transmission lines. In 1986, Commonwealth Edison granted a perpetual easement upon the parcel of land to defendant Kane County Forest Preserve District, for the purpose of erecting and maintaining a bicycle path.

Plaintiffs own the residential properties adjoining the parcel of land and allege that they have improved the land with various structures, lawn ornaments and gardens. Plaintiffs brought this action to have title to the parcel of land quieted in them, contending that the Dodson[143 Ill.2d 465] deed conveyed only an easement for railroad purposes, which easement was abandoned in 1946 when railway operations on the land ceased. Plaintiffs claim that title vested in them upon that abandonment by reason of their status as adjoining landowners. Alternatively,

Page 551

[159 Ill.Dec. 53] plaintiffs contend that upon abandonment of the easement, the land reverted to Dodson's heirs, whose interests have been deeded to plaintiffs. Defendants' theory is that the Dodson deed conveyed an estate in fee simple. Therefore, Commonwealth Edison is vested with title in fee simple and has the power to grant a perpetual easement to the Forest Preserve District.

The parties raise the following issues before this court: (1) whether the Dodson deed conveyed an estate in fee simple or an easement; (2) whether the appellate court erred in remanding the cause to the circuit court in view of its finding that the Dodson deed conveyed title in fee simple; and (3) whether the circuit court erred in dismissing plaintiffs' complaint without an evidentiary hearing.

I

We first address the question of whether the Dodson deed conveyed title in fee...

To continue reading

Request your trial
103 cases
  • Kershaw Sunnyside Ranches, Inc. v. Yakima Interurban Lines Ass'n
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 25 Mayo 2004
    ......, 37 Wash.2d at 536, [225 P.2d 199]; 65 Am.Jur.2d Railroads § 76 (1972); see, e.g., Urbaitis v. Commonwealth Edison, 143 Ill.2d 458, [159 Ill.Dec. 50], 575 N.E.2d 548, 552 (1991). . ......
  • Kershaw Sunnyside Ranches, Inc. v. Yakima Interurban Lines Association, No. 21289-1-III (WA 5/25/2004), 21289-1-III
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 25 Mayo 2004
    ...to convey fee simple title. Swan, 37 Wn.2d at 536; 65 Am. Jur. 2d Railroads sec. 76 (1972); see, e.g., Urbaitis v. Commonwealth Edison, 143 Ill.2d 458, 575 N.E.2d 548, 552 Brown, 130 Wn.2d at 438-40; see Hanson Indus., Inc. v. Spokane County, 114 Wn. App. 523, 527-30, 58 P.3d 910 (2002), re......
  • Ray v. King County
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 15 Marzo 2004
    ...... (citing Swan, 37 Wash.2d at 536, 225 P.2d 199 ; 65 Am.Jur.2d Railroads § 76 (1972); Urbaitis v. Commonwealth Edison, 143 Ill.2d 458, 159 Ill. Dec. 50, 575 N.E.2d 548, 552 (1991)). . ......
  • Brown v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 20 Noviembre 1996
    ...... Swan, 37 Wash.2d at 536, 225 P.2d 199; 65 Am.Jur.2d Railroads § 76 (1972); see, e.g., Urbaitis v. Commonwealth Edison, 143 Ill.2d 458, 159 Ill.Dec. 50, 54, 575 N.E.2d 548, 552 (1991). . ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 2 - 2014 Contents
    • 12 Agosto 2014
    ...Ill. 2d 64, 79, 80, 270 Ill.Dec. 724, 733, 783 N.E.2d 1024, 1033, 1034 (2003), §§13:590.1, 33:21, 33:93 Urbaitis v. Commonwealth Edison , 143 Ill2d 458, 575 NE2d 548, 159 Ill Dec 50 (1991), §15:37 c-524 IllInoIs PretrIal PractIce -V- V.G. Marina Management Corp. v. Wiener, 337 Ill App3d 691......
  • Attacking the Pleadings
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 1 - 2014 Contents
    • 8 Agosto 2014
    ...not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, because a 2-615 motion is decided on the facts as pleaded. [ Urbaitis v. Commonwealth Edison , 143 Ill 2d 458, 575 NE2d 548, 159 Ill Dec 50 (1991).] §15:38 Request for Relief When making a request for relief, be sure that is it the relief that you wan......
  • Attacking the Pleadings
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Pretrial Practice - Volume 1
    • 1 Mayo 2020
    ...not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, because a 2-615 motion is decided on the facts as pleaded. [ Urbaitis v. Commonwealth Edison , 143 Ill 2d 458, 575 NE2d 548, 159 Ill Dec 50 (1991).] §15:38 Request for Relief When making a request for relief, be sure that is it the relief that you wan......
  • Attacking the Pleadings
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 1 - 2018 Contents
    • 9 Agosto 2018
    ...not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, because a 2-615 motion is decided on the facts as pleaded. [ Urbaitis v. Commonwealth Edison , 143 Ill 2d 458, 575 NE2d 548, 159 Ill Dec 50 (1991).] §15:38 Request for Relief When making a request for relief, be sure that is it the relief that you wan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT