## Facts

- Granite owned multiple contiguous parcels as a single tract from about 1963/1964 until 1982, including a shopping-center parcel and an apartment-complex parcel.
- In 1982 Granite conveyed an intervening parcel to the Manns by warranty deed while retaining the shopping-center and apartment parcels on opposite sides.
- Two established driveways crossed the conveyed parcel and had long provided access benefitting Granite’s retained parcels.
- One driveway served the rear of the shopping center for deliveries, trash pickup, and utility/service access; a grocery operator reported roughly 10–12 delivery trucks per day using it and described alternatives as impractical and disruptive.
- The other driveway crossed a small portion of the conveyed parcel to access the apartment complex parking area; testimony indicated rerouting traffic between buildings would create safety risks for tenants.
- The Manns purchased with knowledge that both driveways existed and were used to serve Granite’s properties.
- After closing, the Manns demanded Granite stop using the driveways, leading Granite to seek a permanent injunction to prevent interference.

## Issues

1. Whether an easement implied from prior use may be reserved for the benefit of a grantor after severance of commonly owned property.
2. Whether the facts supported implied easements from prior use for both the shopping-center driveway and the apartment-complex driveway.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s judgment.
- The court held Granite had easements implied from prior use over both driveways crossing the Manns’ parcel.
- The court rejected a categorical rule barring implied reservations and applied the same implied-easement test regardless of whether the claimant is grantor or grantee.
- The court upheld injunctive relief preventing the Manns from interfering with Granite’s use of the driveways and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that recognition.

## Legal Principles

- An easement may be implied from prior use when (1) the parcels were once in common ownership and then severed, (2) before severance the use was long continued, apparent, and of a permanent character, and (3) continuation is reasonably necessary to enjoy the dominant parcel.
- For implied easements based on prior use, “reasonable necessity,” not strict necessity, is the required level of necessity.
- Implied easements based on prior use may arise as implied grants or implied reservations; the same doctrinal elements apply to both.
- A grantee’s knowledge or notice of an existing, visible, continuous use at the time of purchase supports finding an implied easement consistent with the parties’ probable intent.

## Conclusion

The court recognized implied easements from prior use for two driveways crossing a conveyed parcel because the uses were long-standing, apparent, and reasonably necessary for the beneficial operation of the shopping center and apartment complex, and it held that such easements may be implied even when the claimant is the grantor.


Granite Properties Ltd. P’ship v. Manns, 117 Ill. 2d 425, 512 N.E.2d 1230 (Ill. 1987)