Alderson v. Fatlan
898 N.E.2d 595, 231 Ill. 2d 311, 325 Ill. Dec. 548 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The owner of a portion of the bed of an artificial, nonnavigable body of water does not automatically acquire riparian rights to the reasonable use of the entire surface. Such rights may arise if the artificial body of water has, through long and undisputed use, taken on the characteristics of a natural body of water.
Facts:
- In 1966, Leo Fatlan began operating a sand quarry, and during excavation, unknowingly crossed onto adjacent property owned by the McElvain family.
- In 1970, after discovering the encroachment, Fatlan informed James McElvain he 'needed that property,' and McElvain took no action against him.
- In 1974, Fatlan discontinued quarry operations and allowed the pit to fill with water, creating a recreational lake that permanently flooded a portion of the McElvain property.
- Beginning in 1981, Fatlan sold lots around the man-made lake to four other homeowners, and together they used the lake exclusively for recreational purposes.
- In 1998, Robert and Wanda Alderson purchased the 11-acre McElvain property, which included the portion of the land situated under the man-made lake.
- Shortly after their purchase, the Aldersons asserted rights to the property, leading to disputes with Fatlan and the other homeowners.
- In 2003, Fatlan and the other homeowners installed a cable fence in the lake along the property line, blocking the Aldersons from accessing the main body of the lake.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert and Wanda Alderson sued Fatlan and other homeowners in the circuit court of Will County, seeking a declaration of rights to use the entire lake surface.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the declaratory judgment count.
- The circuit court (trial court) granted summary judgment for the Aldersons, applying the rule for natural lakes and enjoining the defendants from building a fence.
- The defendants (as appellants) appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the rule for natural lakes did not apply because the water-filled quarry was not a 'lake' of natural origin.
- The Aldersons (as appellants) were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an owner of a portion of the bed of a man-made, nonnavigable lake automatically acquire riparian rights to the reasonable use and enjoyment of the entire surface of the lake?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Burke
No. The owner of a portion of a man-made lake bed is not automatically entitled to the reasonable use of the entire lake surface. The court held that the general rule granting such rights to owners on natural lakes, as established in Beacham v. Lake Zurich Property Owners Ass'n, does not extend to artificial bodies of water. The rationale is that an artificial body of water is the product of labor, not a shared natural resource. It would be inequitable to grant riparian rights to a property owner who contributed nothing to the water body's creation solely because their land was flooded. An exception, the 'artificial-becomes-natural' doctrine, exists where an artificial body of water takes on the characteristics of a natural one through permanent character and long, undisputed use. However, the Aldersons could not meet this exception because their use of the lake had been disputed since they purchased the property and there was no evidence their predecessors, the McElvains, ever used the lake. Therefore, ownership of the bed of this man-made lake was insufficient to establish rights to its entire surface.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and limits the scope of the riparian rights rule from Beacham, confining its automatic application to natural bodies of water. The court establishes a clear distinction between rights associated with natural versus artificial lakes, thereby protecting the investments and expectations of those who create artificial water bodies. For future cases, this ruling requires landowners on artificial lakes who seek surface rights to prove more than mere ownership of the lakebed; they must satisfy the 'artificial-becomes-natural' test, which requires a showing of long-term, settled, and undisputed use, or prove rights through other means like grants or easements.
