In an attempt to encourage the Michigan Supreme Court to “identify a clear definitional difference between ponds and lakes in Michigan for purposes of the common law, as well as to decide whether (property owners living on) artificial lakes can have riparian rights”, Michigan Lake and Stream Associations has filed an amicus curiae brief with the Michigan Supreme Court in the Holton v. Ward case. An amicus curiae, literally “friend of the court”) is someone who is not a party to a case, who offers relevant information that bears on the outcome of the case but who has not been solicited by any of the parties to assist the court in its decision. Recent Michigan Court of Appeals decisions in the Persell v. Wertz and Holton v. Ward cases have “created a legal vacuum for all lot owners on the many artificial lakes throughout Michigan. Those decisions have created great uncertainty in a key area of Michigan real property law,” according to Clifford H. Bloom, attorney-at-law, senior partner in the firm Bloom Sluggett Morgan PC of Grand Rapids. Tens of thousands of Michigan citizens own lakefront homes and/or property on artificial lakes, that is, on lakes that have been created primarily through the impoundment of natural rivers. It is believed that as many as 800 such “artificial” lakes exist within Michigan.