Kling v. Ghilarducci

Supreme Court of Illinois · Property

PropertyEasementsImplied easementsMortgagesForeclosureimplied easementseverance of titlemortgage lien

Facts

Plaintiff and her predecessors once owned both the front residential parcel and the rear store-and-apartment parcel as parts of the same lot, but in 1918 executed separate trust deeds on the two parcels. Afterward, while plaintiff still owned both parcels, a water pipe was extended from the front building to the rear building, and a stairway and sidewalk serving the rear apartment and fuel storage encroached onto the front parcel. In 1932 the front parcel was foreclosed, and in 1937 a master's deed conveyed that parcel; defendants later acquired title through mesne conveyances under that deed. Plaintiff claimed implied easements over the front parcel for the water pipe and the sidewalk/stairway, but she had not asserted such easement claims in the foreclosure proceeding.

Issue

Whether plaintiff could enforce implied easements over the foreclosed front parcel for water service and access where the claimed uses were created after the mortgage was executed but before the master's deed issued. Also, whether the foreclosure and master's deed cut off any such intervening easement claims.

Rule

An easement by implication upon severance of ownership requires: (1) separation of title; (2) before separation, a use so long continued and so obvious or manifest as to show it was meant to be permanent; and (3) a use essential to the beneficial enjoyment of the land granted or retained. But where severance occurs through foreclosure, the purchaser's title under the master's deed relates back to the date of the mortgage, so intervening easements, reservations, and other rights created by the mortgagor after the mortgage are extinguished as against the mortgagee and foreclosure purchaser.

🔒

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.

In Peoria, Nora Bennett owned two adjoining lots. In 2016 she gave First Prairie Title Trust a mortgage on the northern lot, and in 2019, while still owning both lots, she paved a driveway across the northern lot so trucks could reach a garage on the southern lot. After the northern lot was foreclosed and conveyed by master's deed in 2023 to Eli Romero, Nora claimed an implied easement over Eli's lot for the driveway.

Who is most likely to prevail on Nora's implied-easement claim?

Explanation. The majority rule is that an implied easement requires severance, prior apparent and permanent use, and necessity to beneficial enjoyment. But when severance occurs through foreclosure, the purchaser's title under the master's deed relates back to the mortgage date. Therefore, easements impressed on the land by the mortgagor after the mortgage cannot prejudice the mortgagee or foreclosure purchaser and are extinguished. Nora's 2019 driveway was created after the 2016 mortgage, so Eli prevails. (Derived from Kling v. Ghilarducci (n.d.).)