Brown v. Lober

Supreme Court of Illinois · Property

Propertycovenant of seisinquiet enjoymentwarranty deedparamount titleconstructive evictionactual evictionstatute of limitations

Facts

In 1957, plaintiffs bought 80 acres by statutory warranty deed containing no exceptions and later took possession of the land. A 1947 deed in the chain of title had reserved a two-thirds mineral interest, so plaintiffs actually owned only a one-third interest in the subsurface coal rights. In 1974 plaintiffs granted a coal option for $6,000, but in 1976 discovered the prior reservation and renegotiated for only $2,000. They then sued for $4,000, claiming breach of title covenants in the deed.

Issue

Whether plaintiffs' claim for breach of the covenant of seisin was barred because that covenant was breached, if at all, at delivery of the deed, and whether plaintiffs' discovery that they owned only a one-third coal interest and had to renegotiate their coal contract constituted a constructive eviction sufficient to breach the covenant of quiet enjoyment.

Rule

The covenant of seisin is a covenant in praesenti and is breached, if at all, upon delivery of the deed. By contrast, the covenant of warranty or quiet enjoyment is prospective and is breached only when the covenantee suffers an actual or constructive eviction by one holding paramount title; the mere existence or later discovery of paramount title, without disturbance or interference with possession, is not enough.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In 2008, Nora Patel bought 120 acres outside Springfield, Illinois, by statutory warranty deed from Daniel Kearns. The deed contained no exceptions, but a recorded 1999 deed in the chain of title had previously reserved a one-half limestone interest to another family. In 2021, Nora discovered the reservation and sued Daniel for breach of the covenant of seisin.

Is Nora's seisin claim timely?

Explanation. The covenant of seisin is a present covenant. It is breached, if at all, at the time of delivery of the deed, not when the grantee later discovers the title defect. Under the majority rule, the statute begins running on delivery, so a suit filed many years later is untimely even if the grantee remained unaware of the prior reservation. (Derived from Brown v. Lober (n.d.).)