{ "id": 5108332, "name": "RUTH CRAWFORD, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. ADOLPH H. LOVE et al., Defendants and Counterplaintiffs-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Crawford v. Love", "decision_date": "1993-02-17", "docket_number": "No. 1-92-0569", "first_page": "977", "last_page": "981", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "243 Ill. App. 3d 977" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "266 N.E.2d 724", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 Ill. App. 2d 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2530574 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/132/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "310 N.E.2d 437", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 Ill. App. 3d 569", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2612282 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "577" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/18/0569-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 N.E.2d 774", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "20 Ill. App. 2d 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5195562 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "572" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/20/0562-01" ] }, { "cite": "563 N.E.2d 1039", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "206 Ill. App. 3d 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2558844 ], "year": 1959, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "28" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/206/0022-01" ] }, { "cite": "135 N.E.2d 136", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "10 Ill. App. 2d 289", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5156352 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/10/0289-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 N.E.2d 73", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "14 Ill. App. 2d 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5174087 ], "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/14/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "273 N.E.2d 157", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1 Ill. App. 3d 337", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5312966 ], "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/1/0337-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 N.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "369 Ill. 480", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2565085 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/369/0480-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 N.E.2d 819", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1938, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "3 Ill 2d 425", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2696104 ], "year": 1938, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "432" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/3/0425-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 N.E .2d 235", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "11 Ill. 2d 447", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2784280 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/11/0447-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 N.E .2d 308", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "15 Ill. 2d 388", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2766781 ], "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/15/0388-01" ] }, { "cite": "141 U.S. 344", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3556496 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/141/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 N.E. 187", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1891, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "185 Ill. 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3223905 ], "year": 1891, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/185/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 N.E.2d 717", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1900, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "243 Ill. 280", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3413281 ], "year": 1900, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/243/0280-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 N.E. 248", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1909, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "251 Ill. 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3434315 ], "year": 1909, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/251/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 N.E.2d 200", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1911, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "404 Ill. 581", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5307479 ], "year": 1911, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/404/0581-01" ] }, { "cite": "118 N.E.2d 4", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 Ill. 2d 293", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 12126624 ], "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/2/0293-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 562, "char_count": 7962, "ocr_confidence": 0.781, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0091460930155891e-07, "percentile": 0.5416354389773304 }, "sha256": "3a1563445b1c6d15e098c4716f26d36bb084752307dba3dc7bcad201b14d1752", "simhash": "1:40df1bdf52745e57", "word_count": 1363 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:01.285518+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "RUTH CRAWFORD, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. ADOLPH H. LOVE et al., Defendants and Counterplaintiffs-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE GREIMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendants appeal from a judgment which recognizes title to a certain parcel of real estate in the plaintiff, requires defendants to remove a fence surrounding the parcel and denies defendants\u2019 claim of title through adverse possession by reason of the issuance of a tax deed during the time when defendants\u2019 possession of the premises was adverse.\nDefendants argue on appeal that the issuance of a tax deed to those in privity with plaintiff does not toll the holding period necessary to obtain title by adverse possession.\nWe disagree. The issuance of a tax deed under the Illinois Revenue Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 120, par. 747b) tolls the period of limitations as to adverse possession.\nSometime around 1960, defendants Adolph H. Love and Beulah Love, although not having title to the premises, took possession of the real estate which is the subject matter of this case and caused a fence to be constructed around the parcel. Defendants\u2019 possession has continued up to and including the filing of the plaintiff\u2019s complaint in 1987.\nOn March 19, 1969, nine years into the 20-year holding period, the clerk of Cook County issued a tax deed conveying the premises to a tax sale buyer. Thereafter, through subsequent conveyances, title to the premises was ultimately conveyed to Ruth Crawford (plaintiff) on November 16, 1985.\nPlaintiff\u2019s residence lies just north of the premises and defendants\u2019 residence immediately south of the premises.\nDefendants argue that plaintiff is precluded from asserting any rights over the premises by reason of the provisions of section 13\u2014 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 110, par. 13 \u2014 101), which prohibit any person from commencing an action for the recovery of land unless within 20 years after the right to bring such an action has accrued.\nDefendants base their counterclaim on the passage of 20 years\u2019 possession, thus providing them ownership to the premises by adverse possession.\nPlaintiff relies on the validity of her title derived through tax delinquency proceedings and the issuance of a tax deed and asserts that section 266b of the Revenue Act of 1939 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 120, par. 747b) expressly sets out those interests in land or encumbrances which survive the issuance of a tax deed and that a partial running of the statute of limitations is not among them.\nMoreover, section 266b provides that the section of the Revenue Act which authorizes the issuance of a deed shall be liberally construed so that tax deeds convey good and merchantable title. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 120, par. 747b.\nThe enactment of section 266 of the Revenue Act in 1951 and the substantial amendment of other sections represents the final action in a long battle between the court and the legislature as to the merchantability of land titles derived from annual tax sale proceedings.\nPrior to the 1951 amendment, almost any defect or deficiency in the proceedings that led to the issuance of a tax deed, no matter how minute, made the deed suspect and generally held void. Gaither v. Lager (1954), 2 Ill. 2d 293, 118 N.E.2d 4; Thomas v. Durchslag (1950), 404 Ill. 581, 90 N.E.2d 200; Warshefsky v. Glos (1911), 251 Ill. 377, 96 N.E. 248; Jackson v. Glos (1909), 243 Ill. 280, 90 N.E.2d 717; Kepley v. Scully (1900), 185 Ill. 52, 57 N.E. 187; Gage v. Bani (1891), 141 U.S. 344, 35 L. Ed. 776, 12 S. Ct. 22.\nThe 1951 amendments were adopted to meet an alarming increase in the rate of tax delinquencies. In order to respond to this problem, the legislature sought to render tax titles incontestable except by direct appeal and to provide a tax buyer with assurance that his title and rights to the property are unimpaired. Southmoor Bank & Trust Co. v. Willis (1958), 15 Ill. 2d 388, 155 N.E .2d 308; Cherin v. R. & C. Co. (1957), 11 Ill. 2d 447,143 N.E .2d 235.\nSection 266b was added by the General Assembly in 1965. That section provides that the tax deed shall not extinguish or affect easements, covenants running with the land, right-of-way for water, sewer, electricity, tax, telephone, or other public service uses. This statute sets forth the exclusive encumbrances or rights which are not extinguished by a tax deed. Generally, an enumeration of one or more certain or specific items in a statute excludes other things or items which are not mentioned in the statute. Shamel v. Shamel (1954), 3 Ill 2d 425, 432, 121 N.E.2d 819; Blakeslee\u2019s Storage Warehouses, Inc. v. City of Chicago (1938), 369 Ill. 480, 17 N.E.2d 1; Weeks v. Hoffman (1971), 1 Ill. App. 3d 337, 273 N.E.2d 157; Goebel v. Mize (1957), 14 Ill. App. 2d 69, 143 N.E.2d 73; Dillon v. Nathan (1956), 10 Ill. App. 2d 289, 135 N.E.2d 136.\nMoreover, a tax deed issued pursuant to a judicial process grants to the purchaser a new and independent title, free and clear from all previous titles and claims of every kind and character. (In re Application of the County Collector for Judgment & Order of Sale Against Lands & Lots Returned Delinquent for Non-Payment of General Taxes & Special Assessments for the Year 1983 & Prior Years (1990), 206 Ill. App. 3d 22, 28, 563 N.E.2d 1039; People v. Cottine (1959), 20 Ill. App. 2d 562, 572, 156 N.E.2d 774; City of Bloomington v. John Allan Co. (1974), 18 Ill. App. 3d 569, 310 N.E.2d 437.) Even a city\u2019s lien for demolition and repair costs is inferior to the right of a tax sale purchaser. John Allan Co., 18 Ill. App. 3d at 577.\nDefendants rely heavily upon Illinois Ry. Museum, Inc. v. Siegel (1971), 132 Ill. App. 2d 77, 266 N.E.2d 724, which upheld the rights of an adverse possessor over a purchaser at a tax sale. Illinois Railway makes clear that had a tax deed actually been issued, the court would have held otherwise. A certif\u00edcate of sale does not pass title to the purchaser until the issuance of a tax deed so that while the tax sale will not stop or impede the running of the time which inures to the benefit of the adverse possessor, the issuance of a tax deed will have precisely that affect.\nWe need not only look to the 1951 amendments to the Revenue Act to vest the grantee of a tax deed with rights superior to that of an adverse possessor. As early as 1890, Illinois tax deeds have defeated the continuity \u201cof the running of [an adverse possessor\u2019s] title, because no 20 years had elapsed from the time he entered until the title accrued under the tax-title.\u201d (Daveis v. Collins (N.D. Ill. 1890), 43 E 31, 34.) Daveis recognized the paramount rights of a grantee of a tax deed over an adverse possessor where the holding period was interrupted by the issuance of the tax deed. If anything, the 1951 amendments to the Revenue Act have provided a modern rationale for the Daveis court.\nWe recognize the strong public policy statement which the several amendments to the Revenue Act represent, in encouraging the recognition, validity and commercial acceptability of tax deeds; therefore, we affirm the decision of the circuit court of Cook County.\nAffirmed.\nTULLY, RJ., and CERDA, J., concur.\nSection 13 \u2014 101 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 110, par. 13 \u2014 101) provides:\n\u201cTwenty years \u2014 Recovery of Land. No person shall commence an action for the recovery of lands, nor make an entry thereon, unless within 20 years after the right to bring such action or make such entry first accrued, or within 20 years after he, she or those from, by, or under whom he or she claims, have acquired title or possession of the premises, except as provided in Sections 13 \u2014 102 through 13 \u2014 122 of this Act.\u201d", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE GREIMAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Bernstein & Cleveland, of Evanston (Joseph V. Bomba, of counsel), for appellants.", "Manuel Solotke and Edwin H. Shanberg, both of Greenstein & Solotke, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "RUTH CRAWFORD, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. ADOLPH H. LOVE et al., Defendants and Counterplaintiffs-Appellants.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 1\u201492\u20140569\nOpinion filed February 17, 1993.\nRehearing denied May 24, 1993.\nBernstein & Cleveland, of Evanston (Joseph V. Bomba, of counsel), for appellants.\nManuel Solotke and Edwin H. Shanberg, both of Greenstein & Solotke, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0977-01", "first_page_order": 997, "last_page_order": 1001 }