Granite Properties Limited Partnership v. Manns
512 N.E.2d 1230 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a common owner of land severs a parcel, an easement may be implied by reservation from a pre-existing use if that use was apparent, continuous, and permanent. The degree of necessity required is not absolute but rather 'reasonably necessary' for the beneficial enjoyment of the retained land, and the more pronounced the prior use, the less necessity is required to imply the easement.
Facts:
- From 1963 or 1964, Granite Properties Limited Partnership and its predecessors owned a unified tract of land.
- In 1967, a shopping center was built on one portion of the tract (Parcel A), and apartment buildings were later constructed on another (Parcel E).
- To facilitate deliveries to the rear of the shopping center, a gravel driveway was established across an undeveloped part of the land (Parcel B) to allow trucks a circular route.
- The only access to the apartment complex's rear parking lot was via a driveway that crossed a corner of the same undeveloped parcel (Parcel B).
- These uses of the driveways across Parcel B were continuous from the time the shopping center and apartments were developed.
- In 1982, Granite Properties conveyed the undeveloped parcel (Parcel B) by warranty deed to Larry and Ann Manns.
- Before purchasing, Larry Manns saw the two driveways on Parcel B and was aware of their use.
- After the purchase, the Manns notified Granite Properties to discontinue its use of the two driveways on their property.
Procedural Posture:
- Granite Properties Limited Partnership sued Larry and Ann Manns in the circuit court of Madison County (trial court), seeking a permanent injunction to prevent interference with two claimed easements.
- Following a bench trial, the circuit court initially entered judgment for the Manns, denying both easements.
- On Granite Properties' post-trial motion, the circuit court amended its judgment, granting the easement for the apartment complex but reaffirming its denial of the easement for the shopping center.
- Both Granite Properties (as appellant regarding the shopping center) and the Manns (as appellants regarding the apartment complex) appealed to the intermediate appellate court.
- The appellate court ruled in favor of Granite Properties on both claims, affirming the grant of the apartment easement and reversing the denial of the shopping center easement.
- The Manns (as petitioners) were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
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 an easement by implication arise in favor of a grantor when a pre-existing use was apparent, continuous, and permanent, even if the use is not strictly necessary but is highly convenient and beneficial for the enjoyment of the retained land?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ryan
Yes. An easement by implication arises in favor of a grantor where a pre-existing use was apparent, continuous, and permanent, and is reasonably necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of the retained property. The court established that the creation of an easement by implication from a pre-existing use requires proof of three elements: (1) common ownership followed by severance of title; (2) before severance, the common owner used part of the land for the benefit of another part in a way that was apparent, continuous, and permanent; and (3) the easement is necessary and beneficial to the enjoyment of the retained parcel. The court clarified that the 'necessity' requirement is not absolute but flexible, operating on a sliding scale. The more pronounced, continuous, and apparent the prior use, the less the degree of necessity required to create the easement. For the shopping center, the driveway was reasonably necessary for the established delivery pattern of large trucks. For the apartment complex, the driveway was the only practical access to its parking lot. Given the strong evidence of prior use known to the defendants, the elastic necessity requirement was met for both properties.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the 'necessity' element for easements implied from a pre-existing use, particularly in the context of an implied reservation by a grantor. The court rejects a strict necessity standard in favor of a flexible 'reasonable necessity' standard that functions on a sliding scale. The decision establishes that strong evidence of a continuous and apparent prior use can reduce the level of necessity required, aligning the legal outcome with the presumed intent of the parties at the time of conveyance. This precedent gives courts greater latitude to protect long-standing, beneficial uses of property after severance, preventing a grantee from defeating a use they were aware of at the time of purchase.
