Finn v. Williams
33 N.E.2d 226 (Ill. 1941) (1941)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where an owner severs a parcel of land, and the conveyed parcel has no outlet to a highway except over the grantor's remaining land or the land of strangers, an easement by necessity over the grantor's remaining land is implied. This right may lie dormant through several transfers of title but can be exercised by any subsequent owner when permissive access over strangers' land is denied.
Facts:
- Originally, Charles H. Williams owned a single 140-acre tract of land.
- In 1895, Williams conveyed a 39.47-acre parcel to Thomas J. Bacon, which left that parcel without access to a public highway except over Williams's remaining 100 acres or the land of strangers.
- In 1937, Eugene and Curtis Finn acquired title to the 39.47-acre landlocked parcel.
- Zilphia Jane Williams inherited the remaining 100-acre parcel from the original grantor.
- For many years after the 1895 severance, the owners of the 39.47-acre parcel, including the Finns, had permissive access to a highway over the private lands of surrounding strangers.
- Eventually, the owners of the surrounding lands denied this permissive access, closing the private ways.
- In May 1939, Zilphia Jane Williams also refused to permit the Finns to cross her 100-acre tract.
- As a result, the Finns were completely landlocked, unable to transport their livestock and crops to market.
Procedural Posture:
- Eugene E. Finn and Curtis Estallar Finn filed a complaint against Zilphia Jane Williams in the circuit court of Sangamon county (trial court).
- The Finns sought a judicial declaration establishing a right-of-way easement of necessity over Williams's property.
- The trial court heard evidence and rendered a decree in favor of the Finns, adjudging them to be the owners of the easement.
- Zilphia Jane Williams, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision directly to the Supreme Court of Illinois, with the Finns as appellees.
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 grantee of a landlocked parcel of land have a right to an easement by necessity over the grantor's remaining land, even if permissive access over a stranger's land was available at the time of the conveyance but has since been revoked?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Wilson
Yes, a grantee of a landlocked parcel has a right to an easement by necessity over the grantor's remaining land. The court reasoned that when an owner conveys a parcel of land that has no outlet to a highway, a way of necessity is implied over the remaining lands of the grantor. This right arises from the original conveyance that created the landlocked parcel. The court held that this right passes with each transfer of title as an appurtenance to the dominant estate. The fact that the Finns and their predecessors had permissive access over strangers' lands is immaterial; the easement by necessity was merely dormant and could be exercised at any time by the title holder once the permissive access was denied.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle of a "dormant" easement by necessity, clarifying that the necessity need not be absolute and immediate at the moment of severance. The court establishes that if a permissive, non-guaranteed path exists at the time of severance, the implied easement over the grantor's land is still created but remains inactive. This precedent ensures long-term security for owners of landlocked parcels, allowing any future owner to activate the right of way if and when other, less permanent, means of access are cut off.
Unlock the full brief for Finn v. Williams