Weaver v. Cummins

Appellate Court of Illinois
323 Ill. App. 3d 359 (2001)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Where a landowner can demonstrate that a road was in use to access their property before the severance of a larger tract, the degree of necessity required to establish an easement by necessity is reduced from strict necessity to that which is reasonable, highly beneficial, and convenient.

Facts:

In 1993, Merle and Cheryl Buerkett owned a 146-acre property known as 'Preacher's Knob'.
In May 1993, the Buerketts conveyed a triangle-shaped parcel, which would become the Weavers' property, to the Cornwells. At the time of this conveyance, a roadway already existed across the Buerketts' remaining land providing the only access to the house on the parcel.
The conveyed parcel had 60 feet of frontage on Irwin Bridge Road, but this area was in a floodplain, making new road construction difficult.
In April 1994, the Buerketts' trust conveyed the adjacent parcel, containing the existing roadway, to Robert and Nancy Cummins.
In November 1995, the Buerketts purported to grant an express easement over the roadway to the Cornwells, though the Buerketts no longer owned the land the roadway was on.
In 1998, David and Marie Weaver purchased the triangle-shaped parcel.
The Weavers, who own a collection of antique trucks transported by semitrailers, attempted to widen a curve in the roadway on the Cummins' property, but the Cummins stopped them, leading to the dispute.

Procedural Posture:

David and Marie Weaver filed a complaint in the trial court against Robert and Nancy Cummins to enforce a 1995 easement grant.
The trial court granted the Cummins' motion to dismiss the complaint.
The Weavers filed an amended complaint seeking an easement by necessity.
After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found in favor of the Weavers, granting an easement by necessity but limiting its use by semitrailer trucks.
The trial court denied the Cummins' motion for reconsideration.
The Cummins, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court.

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 necessity exist over a defendant's property when the plaintiff's property has frontage on a public road, but creating new access would be unreasonably costly and dangerous, and the road over the defendant's property was in use prior to the severance of the properties from a common owner?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Turner

Yes, an easement by necessity exists. The court held that while an easement by necessity typically requires proof that a property is landlocked, evidence of a pre-existing use reduces the required extent of necessity. Because the roadway existed and was in use when the common grantor severed and conveyed the Weavers' parcel, the Weavers only needed to show that using the existing road was reasonable, highly beneficial, and convenient. Given the expert testimony that building a new road on the Weavers' 60-foot frontage would cost between $24,000 and $68,000, require extensive permits for floodplain construction, and pose safety concerns, it was unreasonable to require them to do so when a safe, existing road was available. However, the court also found that the scope of the easement should not be expanded to accommodate semitrailer trucks, as there was no evidence that such use was contemplated at the time of the original conveyance.

Analysis:

This decision is significant for clarifying the relationship between two types of implied easements in Illinois: easement by necessity and easement implied by pre-existing use. By holding that evidence of prior use lowers the standard for an easement by necessity from 'strict' to 'reasonable' necessity, the court makes it easier for landowners to establish access rights. This blurs the traditional distinction between the two doctrines, focusing instead on the presumed intent of the original parties to the conveyance. The ruling provides a more flexible, fact-based approach, preventing a servient landowner from blocking access via an established road simply because the dominant estate is not technically landlocked.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Weaver v. Cummins (2001)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"