Opinion
NO. 5-17-0195
05-02-2018
ARTHUR E. WEEMS and ESTHER P. O'DELL, Co-Executors of the Estate of Opal Weems, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF CENTRALIA, an Illinois Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
NOTICE
Decision filed 05/02/18. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same.
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Marion County.
No. 15-CH-39
Honorable Allan F. Lolie, Judge, presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE BARBERIS delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Welch and Overstreet concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The circuit court's judgment denying the appellant's action to quiet title of land adjacent to Lake Centralia was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 2 The appellant, the Estate of Weems, appeals the circuit court's denial of a complaint to quiet title to disputed land in Marion County, Illinois, in favor of the appellee, the City of Centralia (City). On appeal, the Estate of Weems asserts that the court's finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence that the Estate of Weems failed to prove title to the disputed land. We affirm.
¶ 3 BACKGROUND
¶ 4 The essential underlying facts are undisputed. In 1841, the United States granted 40 acres of land in the "N.W. ¼ of N.W. ¼ of Section 9, T-1-N, R-2-E" located in Marion County, Illinois, to James Richardson (Richardson). In 1843, Richardson executed a deed (1843 deed), which conveyed 21.24 acres of land to Noah Wooters. The legal description in the 1843 deed caused uncertainty because it used "chains" (i.e., a unit of measure equaling 66 feet) to calculate the distance calls for the dividing boundary line for the 21.24-acre parcel. The uncertainty regarded the location of the dividing boundary line because the distance calls only calculated 14.4 acres, rather than 21.24 acres.
¶ 5 The City's initial surveyor, Marvin Jenkins (Jenkins), concluded that the legal description in the 1843 deed contained a mathematical error, which caused the southern quarter-mile boundary line to fall short by 146 feet. Jenkins noted that when he used the metes and bounds description in the 1843 deed as the original starting point for all future deeds, all subsequent conveyances contained unaccounted property. Jenkins also noted that a different conveyance five days earlier than the 1843 deed contained a distance call of 3.6 chains from the west corner to two bearing trees. Jenkins opined that the original surveyor of the 1843 deed subtracted 3.6 chains from 20 chains (i.e., the quarter-mile boundary line) and reached a difference of 14.4 chains, not 16.4 chains. When Jenkins corrected the mathematical error, the boundary line extended from the east corner to the two bearing trees and the acreage call equaled 21.24 acres, not 14.4 acres.
¶ 6 In 1896, Richardson's estate sold 24 acres on the west side of the dividing boundary line to Heinrich Friedrich (Friedrich). This conveyance also included additional
tracts of land in section 4. In 1902, Friedrich executed a deed to William Heyduck (Heyduck) and conveyed an 11-acre tract of land in section 4 and a 16-acre tract of land in section 9.
¶ 7 In 1910, the Heyducks executed a deed (1910 deed) conveying part of both the 11-acre and 16-acre tracts of land to the Centralia Water Supply Company (CWSC), the predecessor to the City of Centralia, for the construction of a reservoir, now commonly called Lake Centralia. Although the 1910 deed contained numerous conveyances, it also detailed excepted areas. First, the 11-acre tract in section 4 was divided between CWSC and the Heyducks with a boundary line to run "to the high water mark in flood time of the reservoir of Centralia Water Supply Company, as now surveyed and staked out over the tract." Second, the 16-acre tract of land in section 9 was divided between CWSC (7.6 acres) and the Heyducks (8.4 acres). In addition, the 1910 deed contained the following intention clause: "[I]t being the intent to sell and convey all that portion of said ¼ ¼ Section owned by us and covered to the high water mark in flood time by said reservoir, the amount herein conveyed containing 7.6 acres ***." The section 9 legal description for the conveyance to CWSC of the 7.6-acre section was described as follows:
"ALSO all that part of the N.W. ¼ N.W. ¼, Section 9, owned by us, said tract more particularly described as follows: A parcel of land lying E. and N. of the public highway which runs past the Antioch Cemetery and is commonly known as the Salem Road and W. of the branch commonly called Hoosier Branch which runs NE and SW through said ¼ ¼ Section and S. of the above described 11 acre tract, bounded on the S SW and W by the said public road and Antioch Cemetery on the N. by the said 11 acre tract and on the E and SE by land of Wylie N. Ray[.]"
¶ 8 The section 9 legal description for the excepted 8.4-acres that the Heyducks reserved contained a triangular-shaped parcel, described as follows:
"Commencing at the NE corner of said N.W. ¼ N.W. ¼ and running thence W. 300 feet to a point which shall be the beginning point for the description of the excepted portion, thence running W 937.5 feet to the W. line of said ¼ ¼ Section, thence S. on the W. line of said ¼ ¼ Section 750 feet to the NW corner of Antioch Cemetery, thence with the N. line of said Cemetery to the NE corner thereof and thence in a Northeasterly direction in a direct line to the place of beginning, above mentioned said exception containing 8.4 acres[.]"
¶ 9 Moreover, the Heyducks granted an easement to CWSC in the 1910 deed as follows:
"[T]he right of ingress and egress with wagons, teams and men to the edge of the water of the land above conveyed over any other lands owned by the Grantors lying adjacent thereto for any necessary purpose connected with the construction and maintenance of said reservoir."
¶ 10 In 1931, the Heyducks conveyed the excepted 8.4-acre parcel to Rosa Lankford (Rosa) but reserved a life estate. Following the Heyducks' death, Rosa acquired the 8.4-acre parcel in fee simple. In 1946, Charles Lankford, after his divorce from Rosa, executed a quitclaim deed conveying his interest in the "8 acres" to her. Rosa retained ownership until her death in 1972, at which point, her daughter, Opal Weems (Weems), inherited the land.
¶ 11 On June 15, 2011, Weems died and her estate succeeded ownership of the 8.4-acre parcel. On July 9, 2015, the appointed co-executors filed a complaint to quiet title, claiming that the parcel described in the 1910 deed was actually larger than 8.4 acres. In particular, the Estate of Weems claimed that Kevin Phillips (Phillips), an Illinois
surveyor, had determined that the Heyducks had excepted 14.52 acres (not 8.4 acres) and that the 1910 deed had conveyed only 3.61 acres (not 7.6 acres) to CWSC.
¶ 12 On November 1, 2016, a bench trial was held on the complaint to quiet title. The parties stipulated that Phillips and the City's surveyor, Micah Mulvany (Mulvany), were both registered Illinois land surveyors, qualified experts in the field, and that their expressed opinions would be within a reasonable degree of surveying certainty. Additionally, the parties entered Exhibit A into evidence, which contained an abstract of all relevant deeds for the construction of Lake Centralia in 1910, and four stipulated plats—Exhibits B, C, D, and E. The four exhibits are described as follows.
¶ 13 Exhibit B contained Phillips' opinion regarding the location of the boundary lines of the relevant conveyances contained in the 1910 deed. Exhibit B depicted title vesting in the Estate of Weems for all land north and east of a dividing boundary line drawn on the southeast side of the lake, except the land that had been conveyed to Antioch Cemetery and the portion of land under the high water mark that had been established by the April 2013 Lake Centralia flood. The western boundary line of the portion under the high water mark belonging to CWSC ran diagonally in a northeasterly direction from the northeast boundary of Antioch Cemetery to a point 322.58 feet (2013 high water mark) from the northeast corner of the quarter-quarter area of section 9. Exhibit B also showed CWSC's eastern boundary line and its intersection with various adjoining lake lots.
¶ 14 Exhibit C, which also contained Phillips' opinion, showed the same boundaries and the intersection with the various adjoining lake lots, as depicted in Exhibit B.
However, the various adjoining lake lots were numbered to correspond with the particular counts in the Estate of Weems' complaint.
¶ 15 Next, Exhibit D, an alternative to Exhibit B and C, depicted Hoosier Branch as the boundary line. In preparing the plat contained in Exhibit D, titled "Hoosier Branch as Boundary," Phillips relied upon several assumptions, which included the following: (1) the call to the "high water mark in flood time" in the 1910 deed was a reference to a natural monument; (2) the grantors intended to convey only land below the reservoir's "high water mark in flood time" and reserve, for themselves, all land above the reservoir's "high water mark in flood time" in the 1910 deed; and (3) the area occupied by the water in Lake Centralia during the April 2013 flood approximated the area that should have been below the reservoir's "high water mark in flood time." With these assumptions in mind, Phillips concluded that the 1910 deed had conveyed only 3.61 acres (not 7.6 acres) to CSWC, the Heyducks had reserved 14.52 acres (not 8.4 acres), and Hoosier Branch had been the eastern boundary of the Heyducks' land. Moreover, Exhibit D depicted the Estate of Weems owning all 14.52 acres of land west of Hoosier Branch, except land conveyed to Antioch Cemetery and the portion of land under the high water mark that had been established by the April 2013 flood.
¶ 16 Exhibit E, prepared by Jenkins and adopted by Mulvany, was titled "Plat of Descriptions of the N.W. ¼ of the N.W. ¼ Section 9, T-1-N, R-2-E, of the 3rd P.M., Marion County, Illinois, Lake Centralia," and was based on the boundary lines of all section 9 conveyances. Exhibit E was a plat drawn on an aerial photograph. The City of Centralia owned the 7.6-acre section which was depicted in red lines drawn. Moreover,
the Estate of Weems owned the outlined triangular 8.4-acre parcel in the northwest corner of section 9, as described in the 1910 deed. Depicted with a diagonal line, the mutual boundary of the disputed land ran northeasterly from the northeast corner of Antioch Cemetery to the high water mark in flood time. The high water mark was represented at a point 937.5 feet from the northwest corner of section 9, rather than 300 feet from the northeast corner of the quarter-quarter area of section 9. Additionally, Hoosier Branch was portrayed at the eastern boundary of the Heyducks' land.
¶ 17 Phillips testified that when a conflict or ambiguity in a legal description of land exists, surveyors employ rules of construction, consistent with "generally accepted surveying principles" to prioritize conflicting or ambiguous calls. Specifically, Phillips explained the rules of construction prioritize surveying calls, which are used to evaluate a boundary line location and to determine the intent of the parties. In Illinois, the priority of surveying calls is (1) a call to natural monument or landmark, (2) a call to artificial monument or landmark, (3) a call to adjacent boundary or line of adjoining tract, (4) the metes and bounds bearing or heading (direction) and distance call, and (5) the description of acreage or quantity.
¶ 18 Phillips further testified, however, that expressed intent in a deed would control over the above priority of surveying calls. Thus, he believed that the intention clause in the 1910 deed was "about as clear as you can get" with respect to the intent to sell and convey "all that portion *** covered to the high water mark in flood time of said reservoir."
¶ 19 Phillips determined that the location of the boundary lines had been based on the assumption that the call to the "the high water mark in flood time" referenced a natural monument, the highest priority in prioritizing survey calls, and that CWSC would not have reserved an easement for "the right of ingress and egress with wagons, teams and men, to the edge of the water" for the construction and maintenance of Lake Centralia had it acquired land above the edge of the water. Phillips concluded that the Estate of Weems acquired title to all land north and east of the diagonal boundary line, as depicted in Exhibit B, except land conveyed to Antioch Cemetery and land below Lake Centralia that ran to the high water mark after the April 2013 flood. Phillips further concluded that the City of Centralia acquired title to all of the land north and west of the diagonal boundary line located on the east side of Lake Centralia, as depicted in Exhibit C.
¶ 20 On cross-examination, Phillips acknowledged that at the time of the 1910 deed there was no natural high water mark boundary because Lake Centralia had not yet been constructed. Phillips also acknowledged that he did not perform a study to determine the point of the actual, current high water mark in times of flood, but instead, relied on Lake Centralia's water level during the 2013 flood. He also did not testify to the anticipated location of the high water mark as described in the 1910 deed.
¶ 21 Phillips admitted that the 1910 conveyances dividing the 11-acre tract in section 4 and the 16-acre tract in section 9 each contained a call that started at the same corner and ran 300 feet west to the same point. This common point was described in the section 4 conveyance as the "high water mark in flood time by said reservoir *** as now surveyed and staked out over said tract." Moreover, Phillips agreed that the various acreage
amounts depicted in Exhibits B, C, and D differed from the acreage descriptions in the 1910 deed. Phillips also testified that the various acreages depicted in Exhibit E, although the last priority, successfully accounted for all acreage descriptions in the 1910 deed. Additionally, Phillips said that he had attempted to persuade the Estate of Weems, although unsuccessful, to accept Exhibit E, Jenkins' interpretation of the boundary lines described in the 1910 deed, rather than the exhibits that Phillips had prepared.
¶ 22 Mulvany testified to the following. Although Jenkins, Mulvany's grandfather, initially prepared Exhibit E, Mulvany agreed with the location of the boundaries he had determined. Similar to Phillips, Mulvany testified that Exhibit E successfully accounted for the described acreages that corresponded with the 1910 deed. Mulvany explained that the Heyducks had conveyed all land north of the Hoosier Branch, except the 8.4-acre parcel. Mulvany testified that the abstract of title consistently referenced the same 8.4-acre parcel throughout each deed. In particular, the Heyducks referenced the 8.4-acre parcel in the 1931 conveyance to Rosa; Charles, Rosa's ex-husband, executed a quitclaim deed to Rosa, conveying his interest in the parcel to her in 1946; and Weems, Rosa's daughter, inherited the parcel after Rosa's death in 1972.
¶ 23 On cross-examination Mulvany agreed with the Estate of Weems' attorney's statement that "it would be [his] opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty that CWSC never obtained any acreage outside of the high water mark of the lake." He further agreed that the Estate of Weems' property would consist of everything north and west of the Hoosier Branch, except for the property conveyed to CWSC for Lake Centralia, and that the 8.4-acre parcel did not cross the eastern boundary of Hoosier Branch.
¶ 24 Following the bench trial, the circuit court denied the Estate of Weems' complaint for quiet title, which included all claims against adjacent lot owners and the City of Centralia. The court found that the Estate of Weems had failed to prove title to the disputed land and that Exhibit E was "more likely than not a correct interpretation of the deeds." The court specifically found that "the plaintiff's predecessors in interest only acquired 8.4 acres located in the triangular tract in the upper northwest corner [in the relevant portion of section 9], all of which is clearly west of the Hoosier Branch."
¶ 25 ANALYSIS
¶ 26 On appeal, the Estate of Weems contends that the circuit court's finding that the Estate of Weems failed to establish a claim to title to disputed land was against the manifest weight of the evidence. In particular, the Estate of Weems argues that the court erred where it rejected Phillips' opinion and accepted Mulvany's opinion that the Estate of Weems acquired only 8.4-acres west of the Hoosier Branch as described in Exhibit E.
¶ 27 The Estate of Weems first contends that the circuit court erred where it relied on Exhibit E and Mulvany's opinion, which was based on the descriptions of acreage, the lowest priority of surveying calls. In doing so, the Estate of Weems contends that the court erred where it failed to accept Phillips' opinion which relied on a call to a natural monument, the highest priority of surveying calls. In response, the City of Centralia argues that Lake Centralia could not possibly be a call to a natural monument because Lake Centralia did not exist in 1910. As such, the City of Centralia contends that the 1910 deed clearly outlined that the Heyducks originally owned 16 acres of land before
they conveyed 7.6 acres to the City of Centralia and then reserved 8.4 acres of excepted land for themselves. We agree.
¶ 28 Our supreme court has determined that a proposed structure "which does not exist in fact" at the time of the conveyance may be fixed as a natural boundary; however, there must be no doubt as to the future location of the boundary. See People ex. rel. Barrett, 398 Ill. 480, 493 (1947) (a proposed street may be fixed as a monument when there is no doubt where the street would be when extended, and the fixing of it as a boundary will control the courses and distances of the conveyance). Moreover, when there are two descriptions in a deed that do not coincide, the deed shall be taken most favorably for the grantee. Forest Preserve District of Cook County v. Lehmann Estate, 388 Ill. 416, 421 (1944).
¶ 29 The circuit court's finding of fact is entitled to deference by this court and may be reversed only if it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Zeitz v. Village of Glenview, 304 Ill. App. 3d 586, 592 (1999). We use a manifest weight of the evidence standard of review because the court, "as the trier of fact, is in a position superior to a reviewing court to observe witnesses while testifying, to judge their credibility, and to determine the weight their testimony should receive." Bazydlo v. Volant, 164 Ill. 2d 207, 214-15 (1995). Therefore, our task on appeal is not to reweigh conflicting testimony but to review the record and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the court's findings. "A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence only when an opposite conclusion is apparent or when findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on evidence." Volant, 164 Ill. 2d at 215. Accordingly, "[a] reviewing court
may not reverse a judgment merely because different conclusions could be drawn or because the reviewing court disagrees, so long as there is evidence to support the judgment." Wilmette Partners v. Hamel, 230 Ill. App. 3d 248, 256 (1992).
¶ 30 We first note that it is apparent that the 1910 deed created doubt regarding whether the location of the described boundary line was the "high water mark in flood time." However, as our supreme court has determined, there must be no doubt as to the future location of the boundary. Anderson, 398 Ill. at 493. Here, there is clearly doubt as to the future location of the boundary line, especially given that the determination of the boundary line as "to the high water mark in flood time" would essentially be a "floating boundary," as the City of Centralia has argued on appeal. The circuit court, in a written order, relied on the evidence presented at trial and the written closing arguments by the parties in stating that "[i]t is clear to the court that plaintiff's predecessor in interest only acquired the 8.4 acres located in the triangular tract in the upper Northwest corner of the NW ¼ NW ¼, all of which is clearly located West of the Hoosier Branch."
¶ 31 Moreover, a review of the record demonstrates that the circuit court heard the testimony of two highly qualified, licensed surveyors and received an abstract of the relevant conveyances and the stipulated exhibits prepared by the experts. The record demonstrates that each expert testified to the methodology used to formulate his opinion and create the exhibits. In particular, Phillips acknowledged that the high water mark, as a fixed natural monument, did not exist in 1910 because Lake Centralia had not been constructed, and that he did not perform a study to determine the point of the current high water mark in times of flood, but relied instead on Lake Centralia's water level after the
2013 flood. Moreover, Phillips admitted that Mulvany's stipulated Exhibit E, which the court noted reliance on in its order, better accounted for the various acreage calls in the descriptions. In fact, evidence existed at trial that Phillips had attempted to persuade his client, the Estate of Weems, to accept Exhibit E as the correct interpretation of the deeds.
¶ 32 Furthermore, the circuit court heard testimony from Mulvany that Exhibit E successfully and accurately reconciled the described acreages from the relevant conveyances. Mulvany also testified in detail to the chain of title, which dated back to the land patent grant by the United States to Richardson in 1841. Mulvany explained that the Heyducks had referenced the 8.4-acre parcel in the 1931 conveyance to Rosa; that Charles had executed a quitclaim deed to Rosa, which conveyed his interest of "8 acres" to her in 1946; and that Weems, Rosa's daughter, inherited the 8.4-acre parcel after Rosa's death in 1972. Lastly, both Phillips and Mulvany testified that the boundary line after the mathematical error was corrected showed the Estate of Weems' property north and west of Hoosier Branch.
¶ 33 Based on the foregoing, the circuit court's judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence in finding that the Estate of Weems had failed to prove title to more than the triangular 8.4 acres in the northwest corner of section 9 it currently owned.
¶ 34 CONCLUSION
¶ 35 Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Marion County is affirmed.
¶ 36 Affirmed.