Granite Properties Limited Partnership v. Manns

512 N.E.2d 1230 (Ill.1987)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Plaintiff (Granite Properties) initially owned all the land at issue, conveying a portion of it to defendant a few years before suit was filed. Prior to the conveyance, P had built a shopping center and an apartment complex on portions of the land. After the conveyance to D, P continued to use rights of way over the land it conveyed to D for the benefit of the shopping center and the apartment complex, although it did not reserve these rights of way to itself in the deed to D. P brought this suit seeking to permanently enjoin D from interfering with P’s use and enjoyment of the two claimed easements over the driveways, which exist on D’s property. One driveway gives ingress and egress to the apartment complex and the other to the shopping center. Evidence introduced at trial established that, although the easements were not absolutely necessary for the use of P's property, they were highly convenient and reasonably necessary for the continued operation of the shopping center and apartment complex. Witnesses had testified that the shopping center had been in continuous operation since 1967 and that deliveries had always been to the rear of individual stores. But witnesses also admitted that accommodations could be made and deliveries accomplished by the front doors without the driveway except when the trucks got backed up. The apartments were erected in the 1960s. Testimony was that it would be dangerous to run another road through the apartment buildings. D testified that he purchased his lot from P in 1982 and a survey indicated encroachments by P as to the driveways in question. Finding no recorded easements, P notified D to discontinue use. D admitted that he saw both driveways before he bought the subject property. The trial court entered judgment against P as to both easements. Upon P's post-trial motion, the court found in P's favor with respect to the apartment complex easement, but against P with respect to the shopping center. Both parties appealed. The court of appeals found that P was entitled to both easements. D appeals.