Court Opinion

ID: 9715211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:57:34.131064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:32.505068
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE KARNS, dissenting: Plaintiffs had a ready means of access to their property from the Highland-Carlyle Road (also known as St. Rose Road or Broadway) which bounded both plaintiffs’ and defendant’s property to the north. Before an easement by implication may arise, the easement must be necessary to the beneficial enjoyment of the dominant estate. People ex rel. Helgeson v. Hackler (1961), 21 Ill. 2d 267, 171 N.E.2d 599. The evidence here simply suggests that it would be more convenient for plaintiffs to cross defendant’s land, but not reasonably necessary. Plaintiffs could, with relative ease, according to the testimony of their engineer, construct an access road to the Highland-Carlyle Road. Defendant even offered the use of his bulldozer to cut through the slope or embankment at the north of plaintiffs’ property to grade at Highland-Carlyle Road. Plaintiffs were aware of the access problem when they purchased the property. In Miller v. Schmitz (1980), 80 Ill. App. 3d 911, 400 N.E.2d 488, we recognized, quoting the Restatement of Property §476, comment g, at 2983 (1944), that absolute necessity was not necessary to the creation of an easement by implication. There, the alternative to allowing the landowner access to property over his neighbor’s land would have required the construction of a bridge, after descending a precipitous 40-foot slope, over a 40-foot wide creek that intermittently overflowed one or two times each spring and often during crop season, in order to farm a parcel of property returning an annual gross income of $500 to $600. We held there that the element of “necessity” was satisfied. Here, we are merely dealing with convenience, which in my opinion, is not sufficient to imply an easement over the parking lot of a neighbor’s apartment complex.