Katsoyannis v. Findlay

Plaintiffs and Defendants are neighbors in subdivision in Winnetka.  Defendants own bechfront property and thus have unfettered access to beach year-round.  Plaintiffs, whose properties are not beachfront properties, have access to beach via beach easement, but access limited by gate installed by Village that is often locked. Plaintiffs filed suit seeking determination that they had a right to cross over Defendants' property to access beach so they would have unrestricted access.Court properly found that Plaintiffs failed to establish either express easement for ingress and egress over Defendants' property or existence of easement by prescription. Court properly entered judgment in Defendants' favor, after trial on Plaintiffs' claim of easement by necessity, finding that at time of original conveyance, a ready means of ingress and egress to beach existed that did not entail crossing over Defendants' property. Underlying disputes were not commenced for harassment purposes only, and court properly denied Defendants' Rule 137 motion for sanctions. (LAVIN and PUCINSKI, concurring.)