Eagle Cove Camp & Conference Ctr., Inc. v. Cnty. of Oneida

• Citation: 389 Wis.2d 624,937 N.W.2d 293 (Table),2020 WI App 1
• Decision Date: 19 November 2019
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 2018AP940
• Parties: EAGLE COVE CAMP & CONFERENCE CENTER, INC., a Wisconsin non-stock corporation, Arthur G. Jaros, Jr., as Co-Trustee of the Arthur G. Jaros, Sr. and Dawn L. Jaros Charitable Trust, and as Trustee of the Arthur G. Jaros, Sr. Declaration of Trust, and as Trustee of the Dawn L. Jaros Declaration of Trust, Wesley A. Jaros, as Co-Trustee of the Arthur G. Jaros, Sr. and Dawn L. Jaros Charitable Trust and Randall S. Jaros, as Co-Trustee of the Arthur G. Jaros, Sr. and Dawn L. Jaros Charitable Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Respondents, v. COUNTY OF ONEIDA, Defendant-Respondent, Town of Woodboro, Defendant-Respondent-Cross-Appellant, Oneida County Board of Adjustment, Defendant.
• Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals

389 Wis.2d 624

937 N.W.2d 293 (Table)

2020 WI App 1

EAGLE COVE CAMP & CONFERENCE CENTER, INC., a Wisconsin non-stock corporation, Arthur G. Jaros, Jr., as Co-Trustee of the Arthur G. Jaros, Sr. and Dawn L. Jaros Charitable Trust, and as Trustee of the Arthur G. Jaros, Sr. Declaration of Trust, and as Trustee of the Dawn L. Jaros Declaration of Trust, Wesley A. Jaros, as Co-Trustee of the Arthur G. Jaros, Sr. and Dawn L. Jaros Charitable Trust and Randall S. Jaros, as Co-Trustee of the Arthur G. Jaros, Sr. and Dawn L. Jaros Charitable Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Respondents,

v. COUNTY OF ONEIDA, Defendant-Respondent,Town of Woodboro, Defendant-Respondent-Cross-Appellant,Oneida County Board of Adjustment, Defendant.

Appeal No. 2018AP940

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

DATED AND FILED November 19, 2019

HRUZ, J.

¶1 Eagle Cove Camp & Conference Center, Inc., and Arthur, Wesley, and Randall Jaros, as trustees of various family trusts (collectively, "Eagle Cove"), appeal an order dismissing their claims asserting various violations of their rights under the Wisconsin Constitution. These violations allegedly stem from Oneida County’s and the Oneida County Board of Adjustment’s refusal years ago to rezone certain real property on Squash Lake or to grant a conditional use permit on that property so that Eagle Cove could develop a year-round Bible camp.

¶2 Eagle Cove previously litigated numerous claims relating to these denials in federal court, including a claim for a violation of Eagle Cove’s religious liberties under article I, section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The federal district court, exercising both federal question and supplemental jurisdiction, dismissed all of Eagle Cove’s civil claims on their merits, including its claim under the Wisconsin Constitution. The court declined, however, to take supplemental jurisdiction of a certiorari claim Eagle Cove had advanced against the board of adjustment, preferring to have that claim adjudicated in state court given the limited scope of certiorari review.

¶3 Eagle Cove subsequently commenced the present action, seeking not only certiorari review but also advancing a variety of civil claims under the Wisconsin Constitution. The circuit court dismissed the non-certiorari claims based upon its conclusion that claim preclusion applied, insofar as Eagle Cove brought or could have brought the civil claims as part of its federal action. Eagle Cove appeals this determination and the denial of its motion for reconsideration, in which it asserted that claim preclusion should not apply because of an intervening change in the case law governing one of its federal law claims.

¶4 We conclude the circuit court properly dismissed Eagle Cove’s non-certiorari claims and denied its motion for reconsideration. The parties in the federal action were the same as in this action, the federal litigation resulted in a judgment on the merits, and the claims in the two actions all arise out of the same transaction. Accordingly, Eagle Cove was required to bring all of its claims in that action. Further proceedings in state court are limited to Eagle Cove’s certiorari claim, which the district court dismissed without prejudice.

¶5 The Town of Woodboro cross-appeals, asserting Eagle Cove’s commencement and continuation of the state court action against it was frivolous. Applying WIS. STAT. § 895.044 (2017-18),¹ we agree that Eagle Cove’s action against the Town was frivolous. Because Eagle Cove did not withdraw or correct the frivolous filings after being served with a motion for sanctions, we conclude the circuit court was required to award the Town damages consisting of the actual costs it incurred as a result of the frivolous action. We affirm the circuit court’s decision in all other respects, but we reverse on the issue of sanctions and remand the matter to the circuit court for a determination of damages.

BACKGROUND

¶6 The procedural history underlying this appeal is long, but an understanding of that history is necessary to our analysis of the arguments on appeal. In particular, that history directly informs our application of principles of claim preclusion.

¶7 The Jaros family has long owned real property on Squash Lake within the jurisdictions of the Town of Woodboro and Oneida County.² Eagle Cove desires to use that land to operate a year-round Bible camp that will serve, among others, youth with medical disabilities. The proposed camp includes a chapel, classrooms, boarding accommodations, food service facilities including a commercial kitchen and dining hall, and recreational amenities like a soccer field. According to Eagle Cove, the "majority of the Bible Camp’s activity will involve evangelism, worship, prayer, meditation, devotional Scripture reading, discipleship and role-modeling and Christian educational instruction."

¶8 Under Oneida County’s zoning ordinance, a portion of the subject property is zoned as residential and farming (District 4) and the remainder is zoned as single-family residential (District 2). The Town has accepted and approved the County’s zoning ordinance as its own. It is undisputed that the zoning ordinance does not explicitly refer to a "Bible camp" or "religious camp" as an authorized use in these or any other districts.

¶9 In 2005, Oneida County staff informed Arthur Jaros that recreational camps, religious or otherwise, are not allowable uses in areas zoned District 2 or District 4. Year-round recreational camps are permitted in Oneida County only on land that is either unzoned or zoned recreational (District 5) or general use (District 10). It is undisputed that none of those zoning designations exist within the Town.

¶10 Eagle Cove then submitted a petition to have the subject property rezoned as District 5. The Town’s plan commission and the Town board held proceedings on the petition throughout the first half of 2006 and made a formal recommendation that Oneida County deny the petition. The County’s zoning and planning committee, too, recommended that the petition be denied, and the Oneida County Board of Supervisors accepted the recommendations and denied the petition in August 2006.

¶11 Eagle Cove asserts that following the rezoning petition denial, it expended approximately $200,000 to prepare an application for a conditional use permit (CUP) that would allow for the use of the subject property as a Bible camp within the District 2 and District 4 classifications.³ Eagle Cove filed an original application in 2006 and an amended application in 2008, and the application was deemed complete in March 2009. The County forwarded the application to the Town, but the County informed Eagle Cove that it did not expect the Town to recommend approval because the proposed use was not consistent with the subject property’s zoning districts. The Town ultimately recommended that the County deny the CUP application, as did a staff report prepared for the Oneida County Zoning and Planning Committee.

¶12 Following a public hearing and a site visit, the zoning and planning committee denied the CUP application, adopting the reasons provided in the staff report. The committee specifically concluded that the proposed conditional use "would not conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it would be located," and that the proposed use was incompatible with the subject property’s existing zoning designations. The committee also concluded there were other locations within the County where Eagle Cove could obtain approval to construct the proposed Bible camp, and that the denial "would not make the religious exercise of the applicant effectively impracticable."

¶13 In September 2009, Eagle Cove appealed the CUP denial to the Oneida County Board of Adjustment. Following two public hearings and an opportunity for written submissions, on January 12, 2010, the board of adjustment voted to affirm the denial. The denial was memorialized in a written resolution on February 11, 2010.

¶14 Eagle Cove then commenced an action against the Town, the County, and the County’s board of adjustment in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Invoking federal question jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1331, Eagle Cove raised numerous claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, and claims under the United States Constitution for violations of the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. Invoking supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), Eagle Cove also brought state law claims for a violation of the right to freedom of worship under WIS. CONST. art. I, § 18 and for certiorari review of the decisions of the County and its board of adjustment.

¶15 In February 2013, the district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding Eagle Cove had "no right to relief under RLUIPA, the United States Constitution or the Wisconsin Constitution." The court determined the undisputed facts showed that Eagle Cove did "not meet their burden of establishing all the elements of proof under any of their claims." After determining the Town, the County, and the board of adjustment were entitled to summary judgment on Eagle Cove’s federal claims, the district court noted it would typically decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to decide the state law claims. However, the court concluded that Eagle Cove’s claim under the Wisconsin Constitution was " ‘doomed’ for all the same reasons as its federal constitutional equivalent," and there would be no purpose for expending additional judicial resources to resolve the claim in state court. The court therefore dismissed the state constitutional claim with prejudice, but it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Eagle Cove’s certiorari claim and dismissed that claim without prejudice.

¶16 Eagle Cove appealed to the United...