Background
REN2 and E&S owned adjoining commercial lots in a Naperville strip mall governed by a 2003 Declaration of Reciprocal Easements and Restrictive Covenants. The two buildings shared a party wall, with REN2’s fire suppression system, gas meters, and electrical conduit physically connected to or running through E&S’s property. For years, REN2 relied on E&S’s utility infrastructure to serve its building.
In Fall 2018, E&S notified REN2 that it would no longer permit this arrangement. After obtaining city permits in 2020, E&S disconnected REN2’s utility components in September 2021, leaving REN2 without a code-compliant fire suppression system. REN2 sued for declaratory judgment and breach of contract, claiming the Declaration granted it an easement to use E&S’s utilities. E&S counterclaimed for trespass and sought declaratory judgment affirming its right to disconnect.
The trial court ruled in REN2’s favor, finding the Declaration’s language granting an easement for “construction, installation or service of Utilities” gave REN2 the right to connect to E&S’s entire utility system. The court awarded REN2 $72,729.53 in damages and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting further disconnection.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s central holding. The court held that the Declaration does not create an easement allowing REN2 to connect to E&S’s utility systems. The key to this ruling was the interpretation of “service of Utilities.” The court reasoned that “service” must be read as a verb meaning to repair or maintain—not as a noun meaning to supply—because it appears in conjunction with the verbs “construction” and “installation” in Article V(A)(2) of the Declaration.
More fundamentally, the Declaration would be internally inconsistent if it allowed REN2 to tap into E&S’s utility infrastructure. Article V(B)(7) explicitly requires that “[e]ach Party shall be responsible for its own gas meter, electric, and telecommunications vault.” If REN2 could connect to E&S’s transformer (which requires an electric vault), the requirement that each party maintain its own vault would be rendered superfluous. Courts interpret easements strictly and will not adopt readings that make provisions meaningless.
Because no easement existed, REN2’s placement of electrical conduit, gas pipes, and gas meters on E&S’s property constituted trespass. The trial court erred in finding E&S’s trespass claim moot simply because the components were later disconnected. The case was remanded for assessment of damages. Additionally, REN2’s declaratory judgment and breach of contract claims—both premised on an existing easement—were reversed. The trial court’s permanent injunction against E&S was also reversed as no basis for it existed.
Key Takeaways
- Easement language must be clear and unambiguous. Courts will strictly construe easements and will not infer rights to use a neighbor’s infrastructure based on general language about “service of utilities.”
- All provisions of a declaration must be read consistently and harmoniously; courts will not adopt an interpretation that renders any provision superfluous.
- Property owners have the right to prevent trespass on their land, including unauthorized placement of utilities, and may recover damages even if the utilities have been in place for years.
- Courts carefully parse technical language in property documents; general or ambiguous terms will be construed against the party claiming an easement.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for owners of adjacent or shared commercial properties. It establishes that you cannot assume you have the right to use a neighbor’s utilities—fire suppression systems, electrical systems, gas lines, or water supply—without explicit and unambiguous easement language. The ruling makes clear that courts will not imply easements or read them more broadly than their language permits, even when the utilities have functioned jointly for many years.
For property developers and those drafting declarations and easements, the decision underscores the critical importance of precise drafting and internal consistency. Vague or general language about utility rights will be construed narrowly against the party seeking to rely on it. If owners intend to allow shared use of utilities across property lines, the declaration must state this explicitly and unambiguously, addressing how maintenance responsibilities, costs, and conditions will be handled.