Caseflicks

Illinois Supreme Court • 1941

Finn v. Williams

33 N.E.2d 226 | 376 Ill. 95

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case confirms that a way of necessity implied at severance survives later transfers and remains available when merely permissive alternative access disappears.

Background

In 1895, Charles H. Williams owned roughly 140 acres in Sangamon County. He conveyed 39.47 acres to Thomas J. Bacon and retained the adjoining approximately 100 acres. The plaintiffs later acquired the conveyed tract in 1937, while the defendant inherited the retained tract.

The plaintiffs' land had no direct connection to a public highway. They alleged that the only available access was north across the defendant's land to a road through a third tract, which led to the highway. Although prior owners had at times used permissive private routes across neighboring land to the east and south, those routes had been closed. After the defendant refused the plaintiffs further use of the route across her land in 1939, the plaintiffs could not transport livestock or farm products to market.

The circuit court declared that the plaintiffs held an easement by necessity across the defendant's tract. The defendant appealed, arguing both that the appellate record was late and that any necessity arose only from changed circumstances after the original 1895 severance.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the appeal should be dismissed because the record was filed too late.

Holding

No. The record was timely filed because the trial judge's extension of time to file the report of proceedings correspondingly extended the deadline for transmitting the appellate record.

Reasoning

The defendant filed her notice of appeal on June 20, 1940. Under Rule 36, the report of proceedings ordinarily had to be filed in the trial court within fifty days, and the record ordinarily had to reach the Supreme Court within sixty days of the notice of appeal.

The trial judge extended the deadline for filing the report of proceedings until September 15. Rule 36 expressly provides that an extension for the report correspondingly extends the time to transmit the record. The record therefore was due by September 25, and its filing on September 19 was timely.

Issue #2

Whether the plaintiffs held an easement by necessity across the defendant's land despite the past availability of permissive routes over neighboring land.

Holding

Yes. An easement by necessity arose when the common owner severed the plaintiffs' land from the defendant's land in 1895, passed with later conveyances of the dominant estate, and could be exercised once the permissive neighboring routes were no longer available.

Reasoning

When an owner conveys a parcel that has no outlet to a highway except over the grantor's retained land or land belonging to strangers, the law implies a way of necessity over the retained land. Here, the 39.47-acre parcel was severed from the larger Williams tract, and the plaintiffs' land was surrounded by the defendant's land and land owned by strangers.

The implied easement did not disappear because Bacon and later owners were permitted to travel over private routes across neighboring property to the east and south. Those routes were permissive, not legally secure rights of access, and the evidence showed that they had been closed.

A way of necessity may remain dormant through successive transfers of the dominant estate and still pass as an appurtenance with each conveyance. Once neighboring owners denied permission to use their land, the plaintiffs could invoke the easement implied by the 1895 deed.

The evidence also defeated the defendant's claim that the plaintiffs still had a private southern road to the highway. Her own evidence established that access through her tract and then through the third tract to the north was the only route available without obtaining a stranger's permission.