lake estates subdivision which adjoined the lake it's critical to remember that states that the lake and emerald lake which never are the corporation or the required a lot seventeen but ten and eleven were sold through steve and barbara cook at the time title was severed between invade lots seventeen plaintiff for has it and there is a home on there now and just in december of two thousand we was subject to all restrictions covered as an easement of record these are covenants restrictions and is most record pertain to the land that earvin was acquiring not other land that's was nearby as i said the lake was never part of the corporation or the subject urban it is raising for argument's sake he reversal of the trial court decision granting  as defined by the right of sure order to the right to use the water adjacent to the land bret says ursus earlier involves the rate of access to a real lake from respective way and owned by france's matters which i would like to bring to the court's attention which we believe were incorrectly cited by counsel for the appellant the st is there was a representation made by attorney thomas that emerald lake was not part of the subdivision in fact emerald lake is included on the subdivision plaque which was submitted to the county board of crawford county illinois and approved by the county border crosser county illinois and there are files of record in the crawford county courthouse or the crawford county recorder's office so therefore the emerald lay was in fact included on the subdivision plaque along with the individual loss lot one for eighteen and a larger tract and a second factual issue that we believe was misstated in the opening argument was that law seventeen which is the residential property of my client that is mr francis was unimproved at the time of her acquisition of that property in fact lost seventeen was conveyed to a kirk wire there and as we indicated in our briefs it is undisputed that the lake was used at the time that mr wiring acquired the property so we do not want to leave the court with the impression that lost seventeen was an unimproved vacant lot until mary king francis acquired it now those facts are important as they relate st of all to this change of title issue set forth in ari we believe persuasively shows that in fact pamelor are and had both record and inquiry notice that it rolled like existed corporate bible furthermore it states that she is taking the property from the zinc subject to all easements restrictions and covenants of record that is record notice to her that that is in her change of tile her change title began with the syncs common ownership of the forty acres those are exceptions which would have been investigated and shown of record to create rights to the lot owners in the subdivision as to the use of immigrant lake and the bylaws specifically state that the law owners are a lot less easy and the right to use depositions on file which were made part of the record for purposes of summary judgment that mary g francis center companion michael cook had used the lake for purposes of fishing and other recreational use immediately upon their acquisition of the property moreover it was undisputed that pamela urban and her husband michael urban were aware of their use at that time and in fact it is under speeded that after the urns acquired their property in two thousand and twelve that mary jean francis and her companion mr cook continued to use the emerald lake for a period of six years that is from the right to use it will lead up so there is no question that urban head in current notice that is and as we facts were were before them which would have a prudent purchaser would have investigated further to determine what rights might be incidental to their goal blake so now before i before i finish i do could attach to a lake the reason the supreme court did not base its decision upon broke it is that that argument or that position had not been advanced by the parts so therefore did not address it in their decisions however in no way did the supreme court look at firstly your typical or finally your are we are we would argue that there is in fact an exception to the general repair in law which is set forth in alderman which is that if there has been a long preexisting use of a man made body of water the doctor may apply and that's what they did in in and my other individuals and was only after twenty three years pam our urban objected to the use of this lake for recreational use at this time your honor lesser questions i will now  end divided into different parts in such a manner that one part derives from another an advantage of a permanent open in physical character and afterwards sells a part of the property the purchaser takes the parts sold they did felt those rules st and allege note that there are kind of decision the course specifically found that the recreational use of the property was a preexisting at the time the property you sold the same was true here they developed the lake so it could be used by the sun vision they use was created as soon as the late was developed and the balance confirmed that they were big deal of the fact that the lake was never did up to the corporation but just for purposes of clarification there is no way in the world that irving would know that book or francis were not using the lake with the consent of the lake owner france  now the alderson decision talks about open continuous used for a period of forty to fifty years that's not present in this case your honor there is no law or the  there is no way in the world irvin would have bought that lake knowing that irvin had the responsibility to maintain the lake whatever liability it was astonishing to lake for not only himself but eighteen other home owners potential home owners