## Facts

- Horace D. Wetmore owned an approximately 80-acre tract near Wheaton, Illinois, with access in part via Hawthorne Lane.
- In 1946, Wetmore conveyed a landlocked 10-acre parcel to The Ladies of Loretto, Wheaton, and granted an express driveway easement across Wetmore’s retained land to reach Hawthorne Lane.
- The Ladies of Loretto used the 10-acre parcel for convent and related activities, increasing traffic over the easement.
- In 1957, after discussions about alternate access, Wetmore sold the Ladies of Loretto an additional 40-acre tract (plus access toward a public road), and the Ladies of Loretto constructed a new roadway to Orchard Road, reducing traffic over Hawthorne Lane.
- The Ladies of Loretto later built a new convent structure that straddled the boundary between the original 10-acre parcel (benefited by the express easement) and the later-acquired 40-acre parcel (not expressly benefited).
- Wetmore contended that use of the Hawthorne Lane route to serve the new building improperly extended the 1946 easement to benefit the 40-acre parcel, burdening his servient estate.

## Issues

1. Whether an express easement appurtenant granted to benefit the original 10-acre parcel could be used, by implication or conduct, to serve the later-acquired 40-acre parcel.
2. If use incidentally benefited the later-acquired parcel, whether equity justified terminating, suspending, or broadly enjoining the easement due to that misuse.

## Decision

- The appellate court rejected the trial court’s effective suspension/termination of the easement and the sweeping injunction against its use connected to the straddling building.
- The court treated the use of the easement to serve the portion of the building on the 40-acre parcel as a technical misuse (an appurtenant easement being used to benefit additional land).
- The court held the misuse was trivial and did not warrant the drastic remedy imposed by the trial court.
- Relief was modified to avoid an unconscionable injunction causing disproportionate hardship to the Ladies of Loretto, given the minimal added burden on Wetmore and the substantial traffic reduction achieved by the alternate roadway.

## Legal Principles

- An easement appurtenant is ordinarily limited to the dominant estate for which it was created and may not be extended to benefit other, after-acquired parcels as a matter of right.
- A technical overuse of an easement does not automatically justify forfeiture, extinguishment, or a broad injunction; equitable relief depends on the actual burden on the servient estate and the relative hardships.
- Courts may deny or limit injunctive relief where the alleged misuse is de minimis and the requested injunction would impose disproportionate hardship compared to the servient owner’s injury.
- The servient owner’s conduct and role in creating the conditions leading to the alleged misuse may weigh against granting extreme equitable remedies.

## Conclusion

The court held that although the express easement was technically misused to incidentally serve after-acquired land, the overuse was minor and did not justify a sweeping injunction or extinguishment where the servient burden was slight and the hardship to the easement holder would be disproportionate.


Wetmore v. Ladies of Loretto, Wheaton, 73 Ill. App. 2d 454, 220 N.E.2d 491 (Ill. App. Ct. 1966)