it becomes submerged by the rising waters. See, e.g., Peterman v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 446 Mich 177, 192-193; 521 NW2d 499 (1994) (quoting Hilt, the Supreme Court stated that it “has long held” that “ ‘the right to acquisitions to land, through accession or reliction, is itself one of the riparian rights.’ Hilt, supra at 218. Hence, the ‘title of the riparian owner follows the shore line under what has been graphically called “a moveable freehold.” ’ ”); Bott v Natural Resources Comm, 415 Mich 45, 82; 327 NW2d 838 (1982) (“In Hilt, a recent holding in the Kavanaugh Cases that owners adjacent to the Great Lakes hold title to land running along the meander line but not to the waters’ edge was re-examined and overruled.”); Klais v Danowski, 373 Mich 262, 279; 129 NW2d 414 (1964) (<HOLDING>); Donohue v Russell, 264 Mich 217, 218; 249 NW
recognizing under hilt that a riparian owner has use of the land to the waters edge including any new land occurring through accretions or reliction recognizing that in hilt it was held that the boundary line of riparian owners along the great lakes is the waters edge and not the meander line the riparian owner has the right to accretion recognizing that hilt held that the riparian owner owns the land beyond the meander line to the edge of the water holding where exempt organization was in possession of real property under land contract obligating organization to pay the purchase price and use land for exempt purpose the association was the owner of the land within the meaning of the statute holding that the owner of the land could not bring a 93a action against a prior owner of the land who was not the seller because there was no business connection between the two parties