NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
2026 IL App (3d) 250155-U
Order filed July 2, 2026 ____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
CORY B. BLIZNICK, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the 12th Judicial Circuit, Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Will County, Illinois, ) v. ) Appeal No. 3-25-0155 ) Circuit No. 23-MR-351 ) BB RENTAL HOMES, LLC, ) Honorable ) Victoria R. Breslan, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE PETERSON delivered the judgment of the court. Justice Brennan concurred in the judgment. Justice Davenport dissented. ____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: Plaintiff satisfied the element of a legal tangible interest necessary to pursue a declaratory action. The court did not err by ordering a shared well agreement. Defendant forfeited the argument that it was entitled to the exclusive use of the well.
¶2 Defendant, BB Rental Homes, LLC, appeals the Will County circuit court’s judgment
granting plaintiff, Cory B. Bliznick, the use of a well through an easement by necessity and
granting BB Rental Homes use of the same well through an easement by prior use but denying exclusivity to BB Rental Homes. The judgment also ordered that BB Rental Homes and Bliznick
enter into a shared well agreement. BB Rental Homes argues that Bliznick has no legal tangible
interest in the well, which it asserts is a requirement to obtain declaratory relief. It further argues
that Bliznick failed to establish a need for a shared well agreement. Additionally, BB Rental
Homes states that it established its claim for an implied easement by prior use for its exclusive
use of the well. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 This appeal involves three adjacent lots on Lawrence Street in unincorporated Plainfield
and a deep well. Bliznick owns lots 117 and 118, and BB Rental Homes owns lot 119. Lots 117
and 119 each contain a single-family home, and lot 118 is a vacant lot.
¶5 In 1971, lots 118 and 119 were owned by the same person, but it is unclear whether this
individual also owned lot 117. A deep well was permitted to and constructed for lot 118, the
vacant lot. No well permits were issued to lot 119. At some point, lot 119 was connected to the
well. This well provides the only water source to lot 119, and no other lots were connected to the
well for water service.
¶6 Since 1971, lots 117, 118, and 119 were owned by several different parties. Around 2018,
the Popplewells owned all three lots. Bobbi Zuidema purchased lot 119 in 2020, later
transferring the property to BB Rental Homes. Bliznick purchased lots 117 and 118 in 2022.
¶7 Bliznick filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in 2023, requesting a declaration
stating that he owns the deep well and has the right to connect to the well as the owner of lot 118.
Bliznick also requested such other relief as was just and equitable. In 2024, BB Rental Homes
filed a counterclaim for an implied easement by prior use, seeking exclusive use of the well.
2 ¶8 A bench trial was held in February 2025. Bliznick’s father, Fred, testified that lot 117
uses a shallow sand well that was hand-pounded into the ground. Fred testified that the Bliznicks
noticed dirt in the toilets and stated that he thought the water pressure was low from this well.
Fred called a well company to connect to the deep well, and they discovered it was already
connected to the house on lot 119. Fred had the property surveyed and they discovered the well
is not actually on lot 118 but rather is in the county right-of-way in front of the property.
However, all the wells on Lawrence Street line up in the county right-of-way. Fred contacted the
health department, which determined the deep well was appropriate to be utilized as a shared
well.
¶9 Cory Bliznick testified that he wants to connect to the well in front of lot 118, but he does
not want to exclude lot 119. He intends to have a shared well agreement. The well is 100 or 150
feet deep, and he believes it can accommodate both properties.
¶ 10 Zuidema testified that in October 2020, her tenant on lot 119 called to report the house
was not getting water, so Zuidema hired a company to replace the pump for the well at issue in
front of lot 118. She testified that she and anyone who has ever lived on lot 119 maintained the
well. Zuidema did not want to share the well because (1) you’re “hooked up per se for life with
your neighbor,” (2) it would be hard to determine how to share expenses, (3) there may be
restrictions on watering, and (4) the property value would decrease, making it harder to sell in
the future.
¶ 11 In a 2023 letter, the Will County Health Department stated that it had no objection to the
well being used as a shared well for the three lots. However, the health department required that
a shared well agreement be recorded on the deeds for all affected lots and a copy of the shared
well agreement be placed on file with the Will County Health Department.
3 ¶ 12 The trial court entered its written order in March 2025. The court stated that it was likely
the well was intended to be dug within the boundaries of lot 118, as that is the lot it was
permitted to and was closest to lot 118. The court opined that the well was intended to be used by
“one, or all, of the lots in question.” The court found that BB Rental Homes was entitled to an
implied easement based on prior use and necessity. It also found that Bliznick met the
requirements for an implied easement based on necessity. The court noted that BB Rental Homes
could not establish a prescriptive easement, and even if the court were to grant a prescriptive
easement, it would not grant “exclusivity.” The court found that no evidence was presented to
show the effects a shared well may have on resale and noted that BB Rental Homes’s concerns
were merely a possibility rather than a certainty. The court weighed BB Rental Homes’s
concerns against Bliznick’s financial burden of digging a new well and found that Bliznick’s
burden outweighed BB Rental Homes’s desire for exclusive possession. The court found that a
shared well agreement was appropriate and equitable, noting that both Bliznick and BB Rental
Homes were entitled to use the well in the county right-of-way in front of lot 118. The court’s
order did not designate the owner of the well because it found that neither party established
ownership, and thus did not grant declaratory judgment of ownership to Bliznick. BB Rental
Homes appeals.
¶ 13 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 14 Initially, we note that on appeal BB Rental Homes does not make an argument that
Bliznick did not meet the requirements for an implied easement by necessity as ordered by the
court. Therefore, we do not address that issue.
¶ 15 BB Rental Homes first argues that Bliznick has no legal tangible interest in the well and
his declaratory judgment action must fail as a result. We review this issue de novo. See Oak Run
4 Property Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Basta, 2019 IL App (3d) 180687, ¶ 50. BB Rental Homes
misconstrues the nature of the “legal tangible interest” required to maintain a declaratory
judgment action. “The elements of a declaratory judgment action are: (1) a plaintiff with a legal
tangible interest; (2) a defendant having an opposing interest; and (3) an actual controversy
between the parties concerning such interests.” Thompson v. N.J., 2016 IL App (1st) 142918,
¶ 30. The first element requires only that Bliznick have “some personal claim, status, or right
which is capable of being affected by the grant of [declaratory] relief.” Greer v. Illinois Housing
Development Authority, 122 Ill. 2d 462, 493 (1988). The complaint satisfied this requirement by
alleging that Bliznick, as lot 118’s owner, could access a well permitted to lot 118. BB Rental
Homes’s standing argument confuses the validity of this asserted right with whether Bliznick
could pursue a declaration of that right. See In re Estate of Zivin, 2015 IL App (1st) 150606, ¶ 14
(“A standing challenge focuses on the party seeking relief—not on the merits of the
controversy—and asks whether that party is entitled to pursue the legal challenge.”). In short,
Bliznick’s claim to well ownership or use of the well is a personal claim capable of being
affected by the grant of declaratory relief.
¶ 16 Next, BB Rental Homes argues that Bliznick failed to establish a need for a shared well
agreement. BB Rental Homes points to certain facts, such as Bliznick’s existing well having
passed all inspections for water quality and pressure, to argue that Bliznick failed to establish a
legal requirement for BB Rental Homes to enter into a shared well agreement with Bliznick.
¶ 17 Initially, we note that BB Rental Homes fails to cite any legal authority in support of its
argument. As such, we may consider this issue forfeited and decline to address it. See Ill. S. Ct.
R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) (providing that argument must “contain the contentions of the
appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record
5 relied on” and that “[p]oints not argued are forfeited”); Obert v. Saville, 253 Ill. App. 3d 677,
682 (1993) (“A reviewing court is entitled to have issues clearly defined with pertinent authority
cited and cohesive arguments presented [citation], and it is not a repository into which an
appellant may foist the burden of argument and research.”). Regardless, the facts that BB Rental
Homes sets forth and the arguments it makes based upon those facts may be relevant to the issue
of whether Bliznick established an implied easement by necessity—an issue it does not raise on
appeal—but are not relevant to the issue of whether the court erred in ordering a shared well
agreement. Here, the evidence established that the county required a shared well agreement for
Bliznick to connect to the well for service. As such, the court’s order appears to be one entered to
ensure its judgment is enforced. See e.g., Smithberg v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, 192
Ill. 2d 291, 297 (2000) (“It is an elementary principle of law that a court is vested with the
inherent power to enforce its orders.”). In other words, requiring the shared well agreement, as
required by the county, ensures that Bliznick will be able to access the well the court awarded
him pursuant to the implied easement by necessity. BB Rental Homes has set forth no basis for
this court to find that the court erred in exercising its equitable authority by ordering the shared
well agreement and thus, we affirm that order.
¶ 18 Lastly, BB Rental Homes argues that it established its claim for an implied easement by
prior use. This is a curious argument, as the court granted it an implied easement by prior use and
Bliznick has not challenged that decision on appeal. In the section of its brief setting forth the
issues presented for appeal, BB Rental Homes frames the issue as whether it established a claim
for an implied easement by prior use for the exclusive use of the well. Additionally, in the
conclusion, BB Rental Homes states that it has established an implied easement by prior use for
its exclusive use of the well. However, its argument section is devoid of any legal authority
6 supporting their alleged right to exclusivity and fails to argue for exclusivity. As such, we
consider this issue forfeited and decline to address it. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1,
2020) (providing that argument must “contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons
therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on” and that “[p]oints
not argued are forfeited”); Obert v. Saville, 253 Ill. App. 3d 677, 682 (1993) (“Bare contentions
in the absence of argument or citation of authority do not merit consideration on appeal and are
deemed waived.”).
¶ 19 The dissent contends that declaring ownership of the property on which the well was
constructed is somehow necessary to resolve this case. We disagree. The court below determined
that the parties presented insufficient evidence to conclude that either was the owner of such
property. Neither party challenges that decision on appeal. Simply ruling on the issues that the
appellant has framed and argued resolves the case without this court straying from arbiter to
advocate by deciding who owns the fee interest in the servient estate when neither party has
raised that issue with this court of review. See People v. Woods, 2024 IL App (3d) 230592, ¶ 34.
“ ‘In our adversarial system of adjudication, we follow the principle of party presentation.’
[citation] The parties ‘ “frame the issues for decision,’ ” while the court serves as “ ‘neutral
arbiter of matters the parties present.’ ” [citation] To put it plainly, courts ‘call balls and strikes’;
they don’t get a turn at bat. [citation]” Clark v. Sweeney, 607 U.S. 7, 9 (2025). As such, we do
not address who is the owner of the property where the well was constructed.
¶ 20 The dissent also asserts that the failure of the trial court to identify a servient estate
constitutes clear error and that judicial restraint does not require this court to affirm a patently
defective judgment. First, we disagree that the servient estate has not been identified. The
servient estate is the property where the well was constructed and the parties do not dispute such
7 property is a public right of way. Additionally, we disagree that Bliznick is the presumptive
owner of the servient estate. Here, simply put, he failed to prove to the trial court that he is the
owner as reflected in its ruling. 1 As such, in the eyes of the law, he is not the owner. Further, as it
is undisputed that the well sits in the public right of way, it is at least as likely that the county
owns the land the well sits on—this record is simply devoid of any definitive evidence on this
issue. If the county is the owner and its property is now the servient estate to Bliznick’s
easement, it is not a necessary party to this action because it has not been deprived of a material
right as it stands because: (1) the well has already been constructed and BB Rental Homes, as
well as the prior owners of lot 119, have been served by the well for decades, and more
importantly, (2) the county has already approved of Bliznick connecting to the well so long as
the parties have a shared well agreement, which the court ordered. See e.g., Emalfarb v. Krater,
266 Ill. App. 3d 243, 247-48 (1994) (stating that “objections to nonjoinder of necessary parties
made after judgment *** will be rejected unless the absent party was deprived of material rights
without being heard or the absent party’s interests are so interconnected with the appearing
parties’ interests that the presence of the absent party is absolutely necessary” and those not
made parties to a case are not bound by the judgment issued in the case). Based on the foregoing,
the trial court’s judgment was not patently defective and we simply rule on the issues presented
by the parties. We “ ‘should not sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. We wait for
cases to come to us, and *** we normally decide only questions presented by the parties.’ ”
Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 244 (2008) (quoting United States v. Samuels, 808
F.2d 1298, 1301 (1987).
1 Notably, Bliznick acknowledges that the court found that he failed to prove he was the owner of the property. He stated in his brief that the trial court found “that neither party established ownership here.” 8 ¶ 21 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 22 The judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed.
¶ 23 Affirmed.
¶ 24 JUSTICE DAVENPORT, dissenting:
¶ 25 I respectfully dissent. The majority affirms an order purporting to grant two coexisting
“easements” in a well of unascertained ownership. This outcome cannot be reconciled with basic
property law.
¶ 26 “Two estates are necessary for an easement appurtenant—the dominant to which the right
belongs, and the servient upon which the obligation rests.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Downing as Trustee of James Downing Irrevocable Trust v. Somers, 2023 IL App (4th) 220900,
¶ 15; see Willoughby v. Lawrence, 116 Ill. 11, 19 (1886). Here, the trial court declared two
dominant estates in the abstract, without identifying a corresponding servient estate. The court did
not ascertain the current owner of the well. It likewise did not ascertain the current owner of the
land on which the well sits. Indeed, it did not even vaguely consider the possibility of a nonparty
owner. By neglecting to ascertain the well’s ownership or the ownership of the land on which the
well sits, the court failed to identify “the servient [estate] upon which the obligation rests.” See
Somers, 2023 IL App (4th) 220900, ¶ 15; Willoughby, 116 Ill. at 19. The purported easement
declarations were therefore incomplete and indeterminate, as they recognized only half of the
correlative relationship.
¶ 27 My colleagues conclude the missing servient estate is a public right-of-way. Supra ¶ 20. I
respectfully disagree. What my colleagues deem to be a servient estate is, in my view, nothing
more than an encumbrance on property. Our supreme court has repeatedly described a right-of-
way as an easement. See Board of Education of Richland School Dist. No. 88A v. City of Crest
9 Hill, 2021 IL 126444, ¶ 30 (collecting cases). Because an easement is merely a right or privilege
in another’s real estate (Beloit Foundry Co. v. Ryan, 28 Ill. 2d 379, 388 (1963)), it cannot constitute
the servient estate for another easement. The judgment thus remains defective for want of a servient
estate.
¶ 28 The parties do not raise this glaring defect. Even so, this court may address unbriefed issues
to ensure a just and accurate result. See County of Du Page v. Arjmand, 2026 IL App (3d) 240408,
¶ 101; People v. Givens, 237 Ill. 2d 311, 325 (2010) (a reviewing court may address unbriefed
issues when a clear and obvious error exists in the trial court proceedings). The trial court’s failure
to identify a servient estate constitutes clear error, and irregularities in its ruling make that error
all the more obvious.
¶ 29 The trial court’s ruling sidestepped Bliznick’s sole claim. Bliznick alleged he was entitled
to access the well as its owner. He did not plead an easement theory in the alternative, 2 nor did he
pursue an easement theory at trial. Inexplicably, however, the March 2025 order incorrectly stated
Bliznick seeks well ownership or an easement and proceeded to confine its analysis to “the law
related to easements.” Few errors are more conspicuous than misattributing a legal theory to a
litigant, then using that theory to avoid the actual claim before the court—only to enter a defective
judgment.
¶ 30 The majority states the trial court found the evidence insufficient to determine ownership
as to either party (supra ¶ 19) and Bliznick failed to prove ownership “as reflected in [the court’s]
ruling” (supra ¶ 20). While I do not question my colleagues’ good-faith reading of the record, the
“[A] judgment must conform to and be supported by the pleading and proof in the cause.” 2
Fritzsche v. LaPlante, 399 Ill. App. 3d 507, 522 (2010). While Bliznick’s complaint included a general prayer for relief, the complaint pleaded no facts to reasonably support an easement declaration. See id. (judgment based on a general prayer for relief must be “supported by the facts alleged in the complaint”).
10 trial court’s written order identified no evidentiary impediment to a finding of ownership. The
court expressly framed the “law related to easements” as the starting point for its analysis and
made no attempt to address Bliznick’s ownership claim. The written order thus reflected a patently
unresolved ownership question. Bliznick’s contrary characterization (supra ¶ 20 n.1) cannot
provide a basis to presume an adverse ownership ruling that is unsupported by the order itself.
¶ 31 Nor can the trial court’s “easement” declaration provide a basis to infer such a ruling. The
purported easement declaration rested, paradoxically, on findings indicative of Bliznick’s well
ownership. Noting Bliznick had recently purchased lot 118, the court found the well was likely
intended to be dug on lot 118; the well was permitted to lot 118; and the well was nearest to lot
118, with a survey placing it only four feet from lot 118. Moreover, the court noted the well was
permitted and dug by “the owner of record,” apparently in reference to lot 118’s prior owner who
had secured the well permit in 1971.
¶ 32 Accepting the court’s factual findings, Bliznick is the well’s presumptive fee owner. Cf.
Dudley v. Neteler, 392 Ill. App. 3d 140, 143 (2009) (a plaintiff seeking to quiet title may prevail,
even without perfect title, if he establishes title superior to that of the defendants). According to
the survey referenced by the trial court, the well sits just outside the street-facing boundary of lot
118, in an area BB Rental Homes concedes is a “public easement” and Bliznick concedes is a
“public right of way.” See Village of Round Lake v. Amann, 311 Ill. App. 3d 705, 713 (2000) (“It
is settled that a right of way is an easement.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). Illinois courts
have long held that when a municipality owns a public easement in a street, the abutting lot owner’s
title extends to the street center. See Sears v. City of Chicago, 247 Ill. 204, 217 (1910). Thus, as
the abutting lot owner to what is presumably a public easement, Bliznick’s title extends to the
street center. If this presumption holds true, Bliznick may use the well in any manner consistent
11 with the public easement (see id.) and for any use that does not “materially interfere with or
obstruct” a preexisting private easement. See McMahon v. Hines, 298 Ill. App. 3d 231, 239-40
(1998).
¶ 33 In view of the problematic posture of the case, and because “no one can have an easement
in his own property” (Kling v. Ghilarducci, 3 Ill. 2d 454, 460 (1954)), this court, with one justice
dissenting, ordered supplemental briefing on whether lot 118’s owner holds the fee title to the land
on which the well sits.
¶ 34 BB Rental Homes answered the question in the negative, arguing that applying the “fee-
to-center” rule (see Sears, 247 Ill. at 217) poses a legal question for the court, and that, in any case,
the well sits on a “public easement”—land that had been dedicated to the public. Bliznick’s answer,
though largely nonresponsive, asserted Will County is the “governing authority” over the land on
which the well sits.
¶ 35 Neither answer rebuts Bliznick’s presumptive well ownership. BB Rental Homes’s
continued insistence that the well is located on a “public easement” and Bliznick’s assertion that
Will County is the “governing authority” do not contradict private fee ownership. Moreover, the
record is devoid of any dedication evidence undermining Bliznick’s presumptive title to the street
center. See Emalfarb v. Krater, 266 Ill. App. 3d 243, 252-253 (1994) (setting forth evidentiary
requirements for establishing statutory and common law dedication). Where the well at issue is
located in an unincorporated area, dedication may not be assumed in the absence of competent
evidence. Bigelow v. City of Rolling Meadows, 372 Ill. App. 3d 60, 67 (2007). Notably, BB Rental
Homes’s supplemental brief does not differentiate between statutory and common law dedication.
While statutory dedication conveys a fee interest to the public grantee, common law dedication
12 conveys only an easement. Woodward v. Schultz, 15 Ill. 2d 476, 482-83 (1959). Assuming
dedication occurred, the record does not permit a finding of statutory dedication.
¶ 36 Finally, even absent Illinois’s longstanding fee-to-center rule, the record reveals sufficient
proof of Bliznick’s well ownership. It is undisputed that the well was originally permitted to lot
118, that the Illinois State Geological Survey recorded the well’s location at lot 118, and that, as
recently as January 2023, the Will County Health Department recognized the well was “located
on Lot 118.” See 415 ILCS 30/5, 30/5a (West 2022) (Department of Public Health, which may
designate municipal, district, county, or multiple-county health departments as its agents, “has
general supervision and authority over the location, construction and modification of water
wells”). The Illinois State Geological Survey identifies the well as a private well, and nothing in
the record suggests the well was ever severed from lot 118.
¶ 37 Concern for judicial restraint, however well-intended, does not compel this court to affirm
a patently defective judgment. Because the trial court entered an “easement” declaration that did
not account for the well’s owner, it failed to “settle and fix the rights of the parties and provide
relief against uncertainty.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Roland Machinery Co. v. Reed, 339
Ill. App. 3d 1093, 1099 (2003). I would vacate the defective judgment and remand for the trial
court to ascertain the well’s ownership, as that remains a prerequisite to any easement declaration.