Background

• Catholic Bishop owns 38 East Superior Street in Chicago with a walkway bisecting the property; adjacent property at 40 East Superior Street is owned by Chicago Title & Trust for the benefit of Nick Karris.
• Defendants Chicago Title & Trust and Nick Karris recorded a claim of easement over the walkway asserting easement by prescription, public use, and necessity.
• Bishop filed a two-count complaint in 2000 seeking declaratory judgment that the easement claim is invalid and pursued a trespass count.
• Circuit court granted partial summary judgment in Bishop's favor, finding defendants failed to establish exclusivity for a prescriptive easement.
• Defendants appealed solely as to the prescriptive easement claim, arguing exclusivity is not required.
• Court holds exclusivity is necessary and affirms summary judgment for Bishop on the prescriptive easement claim.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Chicago Steel Rule Die & Fabricators Co. v. Malan Construction Co., 200 Ill. App. 3d 701 (1990) (establishment of prescriptive easement requires exclusive use and deprivation of true owner)
• City of Des Plaines v. Redella, 365 Ill. App. 3d 68 (2006) (exclusive use required; true owners must be deprived of use for prescriptive easement)
• Bogner v. Villiger, 343 Ill. App. 3d 264 (2003) (burden to prove prescriptive right; exclusivity emphasized)
• Petersen v. Corrubia, 21 Ill. 2d 525 (1961) (discusses easement where owner’s use not fully considered for exclusivity)
• Thorworth v. Scheets, 269 Ill. 573 (1915) (public use support for prescriptive easement; exclusivity not directly addressed)
• Limestone Development Corp. v. Village of Lemont, 284 Ill. App. 3d 848 (1996) (public use prescriptive framework; scope tied to use leading to creation)
• Schultz v. Kant, 148 Ill. App. 3d 565 (1986) (owner’s knowledge of use of roadway; exclusivity not challenged there)