Sullivan v. Kanable (IL)

Summary: When determining the boundaries between two parcels, a trial court can rely on a survey based on the “measurement methodology” over that based on "occupation methodology."

Sullivan v. Kanable, 2015 IL App (2d) 141175 (2015).

Go to court opinion.

Facts: Henry and Vernette Sullivan (“the Sullivans”) owned and occupied a parcel of residential lakefront property in Lake County, Illinois. Peggy Kanable owned an adjacent parcel of property with her parents, Ken and Jan Kanable, living on the property. The Sullivans filed a two-count complaint against Peggy, Ken, and Jan Kanable (“the Kanables”) to (1) determine the boundary between the two parcels and (2) to enjoin the Kanables from discharging untreated wastewater from their property into the lake. The trial court ruled in favor of the Sullivans on count two.

To determine the boundaries of the property, the Sullivans used licensed surveyor Brian Lee to properly determine the boundaries. Lee determined that the property division did not match the legal description and that some of the Kanables parcel was in fact the Sullivans. The trial court discovered that the initial surveyor Ed Peklay used the “occupation methodology,” while Lee used the “measurement methodology.” The trial court determined that the “measurement methodology” was the preferable measurement. The Kanables appealed.

 Holding: Affirmed. On appeal, the Kanables argued that the trial court’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. To further their argument, the Kanables claimed that Peklay’s methodology was superior. The court first looked at the legal description of the property and found that the discrepancy within the description was not properly corrected by Peklay. Lee’s survey, however, located the boundaries of the Kanables property, pursuant to the legal description. Furthermore, Lee’s measurements did not produce any discrepancies.

The court concluded that the trial court’s decision to rely on Lee’s survey was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Opinion Year: 
By: ATG Underwriting Department | Posted on: Wed, 09/21/2016 - 4:50pm