Granite Properties LP v. Manns

Supreme Court of Illinois · 1987 · Property

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

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyEasementsImplied easementsEasements implied from prior useImplied reservationimplied easementprior usequasi-easement

Facts

Granite and its predecessors owned parcels A, B, and E together until 1982, when parcel B was conveyed to the Manns; Granite retained the shopping center on parcel A and the apartment complex on parcel E. Before severance, a gravel driveway on parcel B had long been used to reach the rear of the shopping center for deliveries and service, and another driveway across a panhandle of parcel B had long provided the only access to the apartment complex parking lot. Both properties had been developed since the 1960s, the driveways were physically apparent, and Manns saw them before purchasing parcel B. Evidence showed rear deliveries to the shopping center were the established pattern and that alternatives were difficult, while the apartment lot had no other practical access and front-area parking would be inadequate.

Issue

When a common owner conveys part of its land and retains adjoining developed parcels, may the grantor retain easements by implication over visible preexisting driveways on the conveyed parcel? More specifically, did Granite prove implied reserved easements for the shopping-center and apartment-complex driveways despite arguments that alternative access might be possible?

Rule

An easement implied from a preexisting use is established by proof of: (1) common ownership of the claimed dominant and servient parcels followed by a conveyance severing that ownership; (2) before severance, use by the common owner of one part for the benefit of another that was apparent and obvious, continuous, and permanent; and (3) a use that is necessary and beneficial to the enjoyment of the parcel conveyed or retained. Illinois recognizes this doctrine reciprocally for grantors and grantees. Where strong prior use supports the inference of intent, the necessity requirement is flexible and reduced from absolute necessity to reasonable necessity or importance to enjoyment.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

North River Development owned two adjoining parcels in Peoria, Illinois. For 18 years, a paved service lane across the western parcel was visibly used to reach the loading dock of a bakery on the eastern parcel; when North River sold the western parcel to Olivia Kerr, she saw delivery trucks using the lane before closing. The bakery can receive goods from its front entrance only if shipments are broken down into small loads and moved through customer space, causing serious operational disruption.

If North River later claims an easement over the lane for continued bakery deliveries, which result is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority recognized implied reservation in favor of a grantor as well as implied grant in favor of a grantee. An easement implied from prior use requires common ownership followed by severance, apparent/obvious continuous and permanent pre-severance use, and a use necessary and beneficial to enjoyment of the retained or conveyed parcel. Where prior use is strong and known to the parties, necessity is elastic and need only be reasonably necessary or important to enjoyment, not absolutely indispensable.