Madden v. Scott
2017 IL App (1st) 162149
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Adjoining Units 50 and 60 in a condominium share an enclosed vestibule; most of the vestibule lies within Unit 50 but provides the only exterior access to Unit 60’s front door.
- Developer Howard Sellergren completed the vestibule and exterior features (sliding glass door, mailboxes, unit numbers) while owning both units; later he conveyed units separately.
- Unit 60 owners (the Maddens and successors) historically accessed Unit 60 via the vestibule/front door; the sliding glass door remained unlocked for many years.
- The Scotts acquired Unit 50 (purchased 2006) and later sought to wall off the portion of the vestibule within their unit; plaintiffs sued asserting express, implied, and prescriptive easements over that portion for ingress/egress.
- After a bench trial the court rejected an express-easement claim but found both an implied easement and a prescriptive easement in favor of Unit 60 owners, issued a permanent injunction protecting access, required removal of obstructions, and ordered the sliding door remain unlocked until rekeyed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of an implied easement for ingress/egress over the portion of Unit 50’s vestibule | Use was apparent, continuous, and beneficial when both units were under common ownership; implied easement arises on severance | No pre-severance use of the specific area; other doors make vestibule access unnecessary | Implied easement established; use was apparent and beneficial though not essential |
| Existence of a prescriptive easement (20-year adverse use) | Continuous, exclusive, adverse use by Maddens and predecessors met 20-year requirement (tacking not required) | Use was permissive originally; 20-year continuity interrupted before 2006; tacking cannot bridge gaps | Prescriptive easement established; Maddens’ continuous use from 1986–2006 satisfied 20-year requirement and was adverse |
| Easement over interior condominium space permissible | Easement is over real property (vestibule area outside living space); standard easement rules apply | No precedent for easements over interior living space of a condo | Court: vestibule is outside living space; easement law applies; no special bar to easement here |
| Challenge to injunction form and title-cloud ruling | (If easement affirmed) request remand to contest injunction with conflict-free counsel; challenge cloud-on-title order | Trial court properly issued injunction and denied motion to remove recorded condominium instruments | Appeals court forfeited challenges lacking authority; affirmed injunction and denial regarding cloud-on-title |
Key Cases Cited
- Frantz v. Collins, 21 Ill. 2d 446 (1961) (doctrine and elements of implied easements when common ownership is severed)
- Nationwide Financial, LP v. Pobuda, 2014 IL 116717 (Ill. 2014) (elements and definition of prescriptive easement; tacking and exclusivity explained)
- Schulenburg v. Signatrol, Inc., 37 Ill. 2d 352 (1967) (trial-court factual findings are reviewed for manifest weight)
- Petersen v. Corrubia, 21 Ill. 2d 525 (1961) (exclusivity in prescriptive-easement context does not exclude owner’s use)
- Look v. Bruninga, 348 Ill. 183 (1932) (cases recognizing exclusive use can coexist with owner’s use)
- Schmidt v. Brown, 226 Ill. 590 (1907) (principles on adverse use and prescription)
- Deboe v. Flick, 172 Ill. App. 3d 673 (1988) (discusses limits of tacking for prescriptive use)
- Rush v. Collins, 366 Ill. 307 (1937) (adverse-use and claim-of-right are factual questions for trial court)
- Schultz v. Kant, 148 Ill. App. 3d 565 (1986) (same: factual determination of adverse use)