Easements; Access

Richards v Land Star Group, Inc, 224 Wis 2d 829, 593 NW2d 103 (Wis App 1999).

Facts: Peterson purchased two parcels in Pierce County, Wisconsin. Parcel 1 was forfeited to the county for failure to pay taxes. Subsequently, the county conveyed the land to Richards by quitclaim deed, which stated, "grantor has no ingress or egress privileges to said property." However, Peterson verbally gave Richards permission to access the river bluff portion of his land. In exchange, Richards allowed Peterson to farm part of Richard's land. Some time later, Peterson sold Parcel 2 to Land Star, who told Richards he would no longer have access over Parcel 2 to reach Parcel 1. Richards then brought action seeking an easement of necessity. The trial court granted Richards a 16½-foot easement of necessity for ingress and egress to the river bluff portion of his property, but denied his request to install utilities along the easement as well as a second easement of necessity to the river front portion of his property. Richards appealed.

Holding: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. According to the appellate court, a party seeking an easement of necessity has the burden of proving the following two elements: (1) common ownership or unity of title of the two parcels; and (2) landlocked property, meaning that a piece of land is surrounded by land belonging to other persons so that it cannot be reached by a public roadway. The court concurred that Richards is not entitled to an easement of necessity to his river frontage property because an additional easement would overburden the servient estate, and alternative routes are available to enter and exit the land. However, the court did allow Richards to install utilities along the easement as long as it did not overburden the servient estate. The court remanded this case for the trial court to determine if the width of the easement is reasonable.

ILLINOIS ANALYSIS: It is likely that an Illinois court would reach the same decision. Illinois courts have emphasized that dominant estate owners can obtain an easement of necessity when it is reasonably necessary for the full enjoyment of the premises. Seymour v Harris Trust & Sav Bank of Chicago, 201 Ill Dec 533, 636 NE2d 985(1994). However, alterations, general usage, and new uses of the easement by the dominant estate owner must be reasonably necessary and cannot place a greater burden on the servient estate or interfere with the servient estate owner's use of the easement. McCann v RW Dunteman Co, 182 Ill Dec 542, 609 NE2d 1076 (1993). While an easement of necessity permits the owner of the easement to update it to current standards, Illinois courts have restricted easements so as not to interfere with the rights of the servient estate owner. Koplin v Hinsdale Hosp, 151 Ill Dec 685, 564 NE2d 1347(1990). When determining the widths of easements, Illinois courts have limited their size to what is reasonably necessary and convenient for the purpose for which it was created. Unlike the Richards court, Illinois courts look to the intent of the parties as shown by extent of the actual use of the easement, rather than the future necessary and reasonable needs by the dominant estate owner. Thus, Illinois courts would most likely agree with the denial of the river frontage easement since alternative ingress and egress means are available. Deem v Cheeseman, 68 Ill Dec 733, 446 NE2d 904 (1983).

© ATG atgc1299vol23

 

Print this page