mode of asserting claim in Illinois

1993Using and controlling property as owner is the ordinary mode of asserting claim of title, and, indeed, is the only proof of which a claim of title to a very large proportion of property is susceptible.’ ” (Joiner, 85 Ill. 2d at 82 , 421 N.E.2d at 174 , quoting James v. Indianapolis & St.

1986In Illinois, actions alone can adequately convey the intent to claim title adversely to all the world, including the titleholder. ( 85 Ill. 2d 74, 82 , 421 N.E.2d 170, 174 .) As our supreme court has held: “ ‘Using and controlling property as owner is the ordinary mode of asserting claim of title, and, indeed, is the only proof of which a claim of title to a very large proportion of property is susceptible.’ [Citations.] *** Such improvements or acts of dominion over the land as will indicate to persons residing in the immediate neighborhood who has the exclusive management and control of the

1991Using and controlling property as owner is the ordinary mode of asserting claim of title, and, indeed, is the only proof of which a claim of title to a very large proportion of property is susceptible.’ [Citations.] Such improvements or acts of dominion over the land as will indicate to persons residing in the immediate neighborhood who has the exclusive management and control of the land are sufficient to constitute possession. [Citations.]’ Augustus v. Lydig (1983), 353 Ill. 215, 221-22 , 187 N.E.278; see also Hunsley v. Valter (1958), 12 Ill. 2d 608, 614 , 147 N.E.2d 356 .” The record befor

1981Using and controlling property as owner is the ordinary mode of asserting claim of title, and, indeed, is the only proof of which a claim of title to a very large proportion of property is susceptible.’ [Citations.] *** Such improvements or acts of dominion over the land as will indicate to persons residing in the immediate neighborhood who has the exclusive management and control of the land are sufficient to constitute possession. [Citations.] ” Augustus v. Lydig (1933), 353 Ill. 215, 221-22 ; see also Hunsley v. Valter (1958), 12 Ill. 2d 608, 614 .

1986It cannot be made out by implication or inference. ( Cagle v. Valter (1960), 20 Ill.2d 589, 592 , 170 N.E.2d 593 .) All presumptions are in favor of the owner of title, and to overcome such presumptions the adverse possessor has the burden of proving each of the five elements by strict, clear and unequivocal evidence. ( Martin v. My Farm, Inc. (1983), 111 Ill.

1986It cannot be made out by implication or inference. ( Cagle v. Valter (1960), 20 Ill.2d 589, 592 , 170 N.E.2d 593 .) All presumptions are in favor of the owner of title, and to overcome such presumptions the adverse possessor has the burden of proving each of the five elements by strict, clear and unequivocal evidence. ( Martin v. My Farm, Inc. (1983), 111 Ill.

1986In Illinois, actions alone can adequately convey the intent to claim title adversely to all the world, including the titleholder. ( 85 Ill.2d 74, 82 , 421 N.E.2d 170, 174 .) As our supreme court has held: "`Using and controlling property as owner is the ordinary mode of asserting claim of title, and, indeed, is the only proof of which a claim of title to a very large proportion of property is susceptible.' [Citations.] * * * Such improvements or acts of dominion over the land as will indicate to persons residing in the immediate neighborhood who has the exclusive management and control of the

1986In Illinois, actions alone can adequately convey the intent to claim title adversely to all the world, including the titleholder. ( 85 Ill.2d 74, 82 , 421 N.E.2d 170, 174 .) As our supreme court has held: "`Using and controlling property as owner is the ordinary mode of asserting claim of title, and, indeed, is the only proof of which a claim of title to a very large proportion of property is susceptible.' [Citations.] * * * Such improvements or acts of dominion over the land as will indicate to persons residing in the immediate neighborhood who has the exclusive management and control of the

1986It cannot be made out by implication or inference. ( Cagle v. Valter (1960), 20 Ill.2d 589, 592 , 170 N.E.2d 593 .) All presumptions are in favor of the owner of title, and to overcome such presumptions the adverse possessor has the burden of proving each of the five elements by strict, clear and unequivocal evidence. ( Martin v. My Farm, Inc. (1983), 111 Ill.

1981Since the claim to ownership need not be spoken or supported by title documents, and one’s actions can adequately convey the intent to claim title adversely to all the world including the titleholder (Walter v. Jones (1958), 15 Ill. 2d 220 ), it is apparent that what the property description in a deed held by the adverse possessor excludes or includes is irrelevant to the adverse-possession issues.

1947Leonard v. Leonard, 369 Ill. 572 .

1933Louis Railroad Co. 91 Ill. 554 ; Faloon v. Simshauser, 130 id. 649 ; Shaw v. Smithes, 167 id. 269; Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Houghton, 126 id. 233; Lyons v. Stroud, 257 id. 350.) If the owner permits the occupation of his land for a period of twenty years by a party asserting ownership he is barred by the statute from making an entry or bringing an action to regain possession.

1933Louis Railroad Co. 91 Ill. 554 ; Faloon v. Simshauser, 130 id. 649 ; Shaw v. Smithes, 167 id. 269; Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Houghton, 126 id. 233; Lyons v. Stroud, 257 id. 350.) If the owner permits the occupation of his land for a period of twenty years by a party asserting ownership he is barred by the statute from making an entry or bringing an action to regain possession.

1902Shaw v. Smithes, 167 Ill. 269 .