## Facts

- Plaintiffs owned land abutting Gun Lake and used the lake for recreational purposes as riparian owners.
- Defendants controlled a corporate purchaser of a riparian parcel with about 1,415 feet of Gun Lake frontage.
- Defendants planned a subdivision of roughly 144–153 lots; about 16 lots would abut the lake’s natural shoreline, and the remaining lots would front on proposed artificial canals connected to the lake (about 11,000 feet of canal frontage).
- Defendants proposed dredging canals from the lake through shoreline lots to inland “back lots,” and granting canal-lot purchasers privileges to access and use the surface of Gun Lake for recreation.
- The parties stipulated there was no evidence the project would lower the lake level or physically impair recreational use, but plaintiffs alleged the increased number of users would unlawfully burden their riparian rights.
- The circuit court granted plaintiffs summary judgment and enjoined the development; the court of appeals reversed and directed summary judgment for defendants; plaintiffs obtained leave to appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether a riparian owner may create lake access for inland lots by constructing artificial canals connected to a natural lake and convey lake-use privileges associated with those lots.
2. Whether the proposed canal-and-subdivision plan would unlawfully invade other riparian owners’ rights in the lake’s surface and bottomlands.
3. Whether these questions could be resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment based on a limited stipulation of facts.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ directive to enter summary judgment for defendants.
- The Court declined to reinstate the circuit court’s injunction as a matter of law and rejected plaintiffs’ and defendants’ claims that the existing record entitled either side to summary judgment.
- The Court remanded for further proceedings, directing the trial court to take proofs and make factual findings relevant to whether the proposed use was reasonable and whether it unreasonably interfered with co-riparians’ rights.

## Legal Principles

- Riparian rights arise from ownership of land abutting a natural lake or watercourse and include access and reasonable use of the water.
- Riparian rights are correlative; each riparian owner’s use is limited by the reasonable-use rights of other riparian owners.
- A riparian owner’s effort to provide lake access and recreational use to numerous non-shoreline lot owners through artificial canals is evaluated as a use of the riparian parcel’s rights, and its legality turns on whether it unreasonably interferes with other riparians’ enjoyment.
- Reasonableness in this context is fact dependent; conclusory or generalized stipulations (e.g., no proven lowering of lake level) may be insufficient to decide interference and intensity-of-use disputes on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the lawfulness of a canal-lot development granting broad lake-use privileges could not be decided on the existing stipulation, because the reasonable-use inquiry requires detailed evidence about the project’s likely effects on other riparian owners; the case was remanded for fact finding and application of the reasonableness standard.


Thompson v. Enz, 379 Mich. 667, 154 N.W.2d 473 (Mich. 1967)