## Facts

- Susan Wortman Triplett, as executrix of the Estate of Francis L. Wortman, sold an island (with a residence) to Fred and Joan Beuckman.
- The estate retained (a) the lake surrounding the island, (b) adjoining land around the lake, and (c) a 10‑foot strip of land around the island’s shoreline.
- The Beuckmans received:  
  - the right to use and cross the 10‑foot strip for access to the island, but not to improve it;  
  - the right to recreational use of the lake jointly with the lake’s owners; and  
  - an easement “for roadway purposes” across the surrounding land to a bridge and then “across said bridge” (about 60 feet) to the island.
- The wooden bridge was the only above‑water means of access to the island and was in poor condition.
- The Beuckmans sought Triplett’s help in repairing the bridge; the plaintiffs did not contribute.
- The bridge continued to deteriorate and eventually gave way.
- The Beuckmans removed the bridge and constructed a filled earthen causeway in its place.
- Plaintiffs presented evidence that, before the causeway, family members could boat and water‑ski around the island by passing under the bridge, and that the causeway restricted this use and could reduce property value.
- Fred Beuckman testified that, when the bridge was removed, there was no water under it (so water‑skiing under it was not possible), and that an engineer and ironworkers had advised him the bridge could not be repaired.
- Both Triplett and Fred testified that they believed the Beuckmans owned the bridge.
- Plaintiffs sued for a mandatory injunction requiring removal of the causeway and construction of a bridge; defendants counterclaimed for the cost of the causeway.
- After a bench trial, the circuit court denied injunctive relief, finding the causeway a reasonable solution and attributing plaintiffs’ injury to plaintiffs’ refusal to cooperate in bridge repair; the court rejected defendants’ counterclaim (not appealed).
- Plaintiffs appealed the denial of the mandatory injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether an easement expressly described as access “to” and “across said bridge” permitted the easement holders to replace the bridge with a causeway that interfered with the servient owners’ use of the lake.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying a mandatory injunction requiring removal of the causeway and restoration of bridge access.

## Decision

- The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District reversed the judgment for defendants on plaintiffs’ complaint and remanded with directions.
- The court held that, absent an agreement otherwise, the easement holders had the duty to maintain the access structure associated with the easement, and the servient owners had no duty to repair it.
- By replacing the bridge with a causeway, defendants exceeded the scope of the grant because the change materially altered the character of the access described in the easement and imposed a greater burden on the servient estate, including interference with recreational use of the lake.
- The court rejected the trial court’s rationale that plaintiffs’ refusal to help repair the bridge justified the causeway; noncooperation did not transfer the legal maintenance obligation to plaintiffs or authorize defendants to impose a more burdensome substitute.
- On remand, the trial court was directed to issue a mandatory injunction requiring removal of the causeway and construction of a bridge, while retaining equitable authority to shape the exact form of the replacement bridge consistent with reasonable use of the lake.

## Legal Principles

- In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the owner of an easement has both the right and the duty to keep the easement in repair; the servient owner has no duty to put or keep the easement in repair and must only refrain from interfering with the authorized use.
- The scope of an easement is controlled by the language of the grant; where the grant specifies a particular mode and location of access (here, crossing “said bridge”), the easement holder cannot substitute a materially different structure that changes the servitude’s character.
- An easement holder may make repairs and improvements reasonably necessary to enjoy the easement, but may not impose a greater burden on the servient estate than the parties contemplated when the easement was created.
- A causeway that blocks passage where a bridge allowed water passage can constitute an added burden on the servient estate, particularly when the servient owners retain rights in the waterbody for recreation.
- Mandatory injunctive relief is an available remedy to stop continuing use of an unauthorized alteration and to require restoration consistent with the easement’s terms, with the trial court retaining discretion to tailor the specific restorative measures in equity.

## Conclusion

Triplett v. Beuckman held that an access easement described as crossing a bridge did not allow the dominant owners to remove the bridge and replace it with a causeway that increased the burden on the servient owners’ retained lake rights; the appellate court reversed the denial of relief and remanded for entry of a mandatory injunction requiring removal of the causeway and construction of a bridge in an equitable form consistent with the easement and reasonable lake use.


Triplett v. Beuckman, 40 Ill. App. 3d 379, 352 N.E.2d 458 (1976)