Standewitz v. Boho
Annotate this Case
No. 2--96--0797
________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
________________________________________________________________
DELORES STANKEWITZ, JANE VAN ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
HAMME, LaVONNE ERTMER, and ) of Jo Daviess County.
MAXINE BUFFO, )
)
Plaintiffs-Appellees, )
) No. 93--CH--21
v. )
)
JAMES W. BOHO and MARY )
ELLEN BOHO, ) Honorable
) William A. Kelly,
Defendants-Appellants. ) Judge, Presiding.
________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE DOYLE delivered the opinion of the court:
Defendants, James and Mary Ellen Boho, appeal the circuit
court's order finding that plaintiffs, Delores Stankewitz, Jane Van
Hamme, LaVonne Ertmer, and Maxine Buffo, had obtained title by
adverse possession to approximately three acres of land of which
defendants are the legal titleholders. Defendants' contentions can
be summarized as follows: (1) the evidence was insufficient to
support the court's finding of adverse possession and (2)
plaintiffs failed to establish the boundaries of the disputed
parcel.
Plaintiffs and defendants own adjacent parcels of land in
Elizabeth Township, Jo Daviess County. Plaintiffs' parcel borders
defendants' to the east and south. Defendants purchased their
parcel in 1993 from William Brown, who had acquired it from his
aunt and uncle, William and Gladys Mougin, in 1975. The parcel had
been in the Brown-Mougin family since at least the mid-1800s.
Plaintiffs acquired their parcel from their mother, Orphie
Mitchell, in 1991. She and her late husband, Lawrence Mitchell,
purchased the tract from Alice Virtue in 1959.
Shortly after acquiring their property, the Mitchells began
leasing the adjacent tract from the Mougins and later from Brown.
They used both parcels to run cattle.
When the Mitchells purchased their parcel, an irregular, or
"zig-zag," fence existed on the southeast quarter of the adjacent
Mougin-Brown property. This fence ran roughly in a semicircle and
approxim
________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
________________________________________________________________
DELORES STANKEWITZ, JANE VAN ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
HAMME, LaVONNE ERTMER, and ) of Jo Daviess County.
MAXINE BUFFO, )
)
Plaintiffs-Appellees, )
) No. 93--CH--21
v. )
)
JAMES W. BOHO and MARY )
ELLEN BOHO, ) Honorable
) William A. Kelly,
Defendants-Appellants. ) Judge, Presiding.
________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE DOYLE delivered the opinion of the court:
Defendants, James and Mary Ellen Boho, appeal the circuit
court's order finding that plaintiffs, Delores Stankewitz, Jane Van
Hamme, LaVonne Ertmer, and Maxine Buffo, had obtained title by
adverse possession to approximately three acres of land of which
defendants are the legal titleholders. Defendants' contentions can
be summarized as follows: (1) the evidence was insufficient to
support the court's finding of adverse possession and (2)
plaintiffs failed to establish the boundaries of the disputed
parcel.
Plaintiffs and defendants own adjacent parcels of land in
Elizabeth Township, Jo Daviess County. Plaintiffs' parcel borders
defendants' to the east and south. Defendants purchased their
parcel in 1993 from William Brown, who had acquired it from his
aunt and uncle, William and Gladys Mougin, in 1975. The parcel had
been in the Brown-Mougin family since at least the mid-1800s.
Plaintiffs acquired their parcel from their mother, Orphie
Mitchell, in 1991. She and her late husband, Lawrence Mitchell,
purchased the tract from Alice Virtue in 1959.
Shortly after acquiring their property, the Mitchells began
leasing the adjacent tract from the Mougins and later from Brown.
They used both parcels to run cattle.
When the Mitchells purchased their parcel, an irregular, or
"zig-zag," fence existed on the southeast quarter of the adjacent
Mougin-Brown property. This fence ran roughly in a semicircle and
approxim
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
