## Facts

- A 40-acre tract was owned by John W. Mercer, who died intestate leaving a widow, five sons, and two daughters as heirs.
- One daughter, Lora Wayman, later died intestate, survived by her husband (Oscar T. Wayman) and three minor sons (Verne, June, and Paul Wayman).
- In 1920, John Mercer’s widow, several children, and spouses executed a quitclaim deed conveying the tract to Fred L. Mercer and his wife, M. Hattie Mercer; Oscar Wayman signed individually and as “father and natural guardian” of Lora’s minor children.
- Fred and Hattie Mercer took possession, farmed the land continuously, paid all taxes assessed in Fred’s name, and executed recorded mortgages warranting fee simple title.
- Plaintiffs (Fred’s widow and children) later executed oil and gas leases covering the tract; defendants (Wayman descendants) executed competing leases claiming an undivided one-seventh interest as tenants in common.
- The youngest Wayman child reached majority in 1926; the Wayman family did not demand rents or profits or otherwise assert a claim for decades.
- Plaintiffs sued to quiet title in themselves and to invalidate defendants’ leases, relying on adverse possession and Illinois limitation statutes (20-year and 7-year).

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs’ long, exclusive possession, tax payments, and acts of ownership barred the Wayman heirs’ undivided interest under limitation statutes, given the parties’ status as tenants in common.
2. Whether the 1920 deed executed by the father as “natural guardian” provided color of title sufficient to invoke the 7-year limitations statute against the minors’ interests.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the decree that had quieted title in plaintiffs and set aside defendants’ leases.
- The court held the Wayman heirs’ undivided one-seventh interest was not barred because plaintiffs did not prove adverse possession against cotenants.
- The court held the father’s execution of the 1920 deed as “natural guardian” did not validly convey the minors’ interests and did not supply effective color of title for the 7-year statute.

## Legal Principles

- As between tenants in common, one cotenant’s sole possession, receipt of rents and profits, and payment of taxes—regardless of duration—does not, by itself, bar other cotenants.
- Limitations against cotenants require ouster or a clear, overt, and notorious repudiation of the other cotenants’ rights, communicated by acts sufficient to give notice of an adverse claim.
- The burden is on the party asserting adverse possession against cotenants to show the possession changed from permissive (under the common title) to hostile by demonstrable ouster or unequivocal notice.
- A parent acting only as a “natural guardian,” without required legal authority, cannot convey a minor’s real property interest; an ineffective conveyance of that type cannot serve as color of title to cut off the minor’s interest under a short limitations period.

## Conclusion

Because plaintiffs failed to establish ouster or a clearly communicated repudiation of the Wayman heirs’ cotenancy, and because the father’s “natural guardian” deed could not transfer the minors’ interests or create effective color of title, the Wayman heirs’ undivided one-seventh interest survived and the decree quieting title in plaintiffs was reversed.


Mercer v. Wayman, 137 N.E.2d 815 (Ill. 1956)