Illinois Compiled Statutes
765 ILCS 330/4 (2026)
Neither possibilities of reverter nor rights of entry or re-entry for breach of condition subsequent, whether heretofore or hereafter created, where the condition has not been broken, shall be valid for a longer period than 40 years from the date of the creation of the condition or possibility of reverter
✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(765 ILCS 330/4)
(from Ch. 30, par. 37e)
Sec. 4.
Neither possibilities of reverter nor rights of entry or re-entry
for breach of condition subsequent, whether heretofore or hereafter
created, where the condition has not been broken, shall be valid for a
longer period than 40 years from the date of the creation of the condition
or possibility of reverter. If such a possibility of reverter or right of
entry or re-entry is created to endure for a longer period than 40 years,
it shall be valid for 40 years.
(Source: Laws 1959, p. 579.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1996–2002 · leading case: Diaz v. Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 786 N.E.2d 1033 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2002).
Diaz v. Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 786 N.E.2d 1033 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2002). “Finally, the bank asserts that any possibility of reverter created by the Tefft deed to plaintiffs’ predecessor was extinguished by section 4 of the Rights of Entry or Re-entry Act (765 ILCS 330/4 (West 2000)). We hold that none of these statutes bar plaintiffs’ claim.”
Drayson v. Wolff, 661 N.E.2d 486 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1996). “…that rights of reentry for breach of conditions subsequent shall not be valid for a period longer than 40 years. 765 ILCS 330/4 (West 1992).”
Diaz v. Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, No. 2-01-1165 Rel (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Oct. 3, 2002). “Finally, the bank asserts that any possibility of reverter created by the Tefft deed to plaintiffs' predecessor was extinguished by section 4 of the Rights of Entry or Re-entry Act (765 ILCS 330/4 (West 2000)). We hold that none of these statutes bar plaintiffs' claim.”
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.
|