ILCS » Chapter 735 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

735 ILCS 5/13-102 (2026)

Breach of condition subsequent

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(735 ILCS 5/13-102) (from Ch. 110, par. 13-102)
    Sec. 13-102. Breach of condition subsequent. No person shall commence an action for the recovery of lands, nor make an entry thereon, by reason of the breach of a condition subsequent, unless within 7 years after the time that condition is first broken. Continuing, successive or recurring breaches shall not extend the time for commencing the action or making the entry. Possession shall be deemed to be adverse and hostile from and after the first breach of a condition subsequent, notwithstanding the occurrence of successive or recurrent breaches.
(Source: P.A. 82-280.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: 527 S. Clinton, LLC v. Westloop Equities, LLC, 2014 IL App (1st) 131401 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
527 S. Clinton, LLC v. Westloop Equities, LLC, 2014 IL App (1st) 131401 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “¶7 The circuit court dismissed count III, finding it was time barred under section 13-101 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/13-101 (West 2006)), and count I, finding it was time barred under both section 13-101 and section 13-102 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/13-102…”
Swaby v. N. Hills Reg'l R.R. Auth., 2009 SD 57 (S.D. 2009). “"). Second, unlike other states, South Dakota has no statute of limitations specifically related to breaches of conditions subsequent.”
Jamie Crane Trust Dated October 17, 2001 v. Heartland Pathways, 2025 IL App (5th) 240885-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). “¶ 14 The motion also argued that default judgment should not be granted because defendant had now entered its appearance, and its pleadings thereafter were timely and sought a determination on the merits.”
527 S. Clinton v. Westloop Equities (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “" 735 ILCS 5/13-102 (West 2006). In this case, the easement granting free parking to the hotel's patrons and guests was to continue "so long as" the hotel remained in operation.”
Swaby v. N. Hills Reg'l R.R. Auth., 769 N.W.2d 798 (2009). “conditions subsequent in any deed.”). Second, unlike other states, South Dakota has no statute of limitations specifically related to breaches of conditions subsequent.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.