Bjork v. Draper
886 N.E.2d 563, 381 Ill. App. 3d 528 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A general amendment clause in a conservation easement does not authorize amendments that directly contradict the easement's express and specific prohibitions, as all provisions of the easement must be interpreted harmoniously to give effect to each clause.
Facts:
- In 1998, J. Douglas and Karen Gray granted a conservation easement on 'lot 2' of their historic property to the Lake Forest Open Lands Association (the Association) to preserve its scenic and open condition.
- The easement's terms expressly prohibited 'the placement or construction of any buildings whatsoever, or other structures or improvements of any kind' on the protected lot.
- The easement also contained a clause, Section 23(d), stating that 'No alteration or variation of this instrument shall be valid or binding unless contained in a written amendment first executed by Grantors and Grantee.'
- In 2000, John and Liz Draper purchased the property from the Grays.
- In 2002, the Drapers, with the Association's consent, built an addition to their house that was larger than the easement originally permitted.
- In 2003, the Drapers wished to build a new brick driveway turnaround that would encroach onto the protected lot 2.
- On November 5, 2003, the Drapers and the Association executed a 'first amendment' to the easement, which removed the portion of lot 2 needed for the driveway from the easement's protection in exchange for adding an equal area of land from a different lot.
- The Drapers also made significant landscaping changes to the property, including planting a row of arbor vitae and other trees and shrubs.
Procedural Posture:
- John and Stephanie Bjork (plaintiffs) filed a complaint against John and Liz Draper and the Lake Forest Open Lands Association (defendants) in the circuit court of Lake County (trial court), seeking damages and a declaratory judgment that the easement could not be amended.
- The Drapers filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of amendability, and the Bjorks filed a cross-motion.
- The trial court granted the Drapers' motion, ruling as a matter of law that the conservation easement could be amended.
- After a bench trial on the validity of the specific alterations, the trial court found the first and second amendments (allowing the driveway) were valid, but that the third amendment (addressing the house addition and landscaping) was invalid in its entirety.
- The Bjorks (appellants) appealed the trial court's ruling that the easement was amendable and that the first two amendments were valid.
- The Drapers (appellees/cross-appellants) filed a cross-appeal, challenging the trial court's invalidation of the entire third amendment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a clause in a conservation easement permitting written amendments by the parties authorize an amendment that directly contradicts another clause in the easement expressly prohibiting the construction of any new structures or improvements?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Gilleran Johnson
No. Although a conservation easement may contain a clause allowing for amendments, such a clause does not permit an amendment that directly conflicts with the easement's specific and express prohibitions. The court reasoned that contracts must be interpreted as a whole, giving meaning and effect to each provision. The general amendment clause (Section 23(d)) must be read in harmony with the specific prohibition on improvements (Section 3). To allow the amendment clause to nullify the prohibition clause would render the prohibition meaningless. Because the first and second amendments authorized the construction of a driveway, a new improvement expressly prohibited by Section 3, those amendments are invalid as they conflict with the plain language of the easement. Therefore, the trial court's ruling upholding these amendments is reversed.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the legal limitations on amending perpetual conservation easements. It establishes the important precedent that a general amendment clause cannot be used to undermine the fundamental, express prohibitions that form the core of the conservation bargain. This ruling protects the integrity of conservation easements against modifications by subsequent landowners and easement holders that could weaken the original conservation purposes. The case reinforces the principle of harmonious contract construction, ensuring that specific restrictions are not rendered superfluous by general modification clauses, thereby strengthening the long-term enforceability of such land preservation agreements.
