Opsahl v. Castle Rock Lake Campground, LLC

• Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BLANCHARD, J.
• Docket Number: 2024AP2364,2024AP2365,2024AP2366
• Decision Date: 09 April 2026
• Citation: Opsahl v. Castle Rock Lake Campground, LLC, 2024AP2364, 2024AP2365, 2024AP2366 (Wis. App. Apr 09, 2026)
• Parties: Kassandra Lee Opsahl and Peter C. Opsahl, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Castle Rock Lake Campground, LLC, Defendant-Appellant. Jane Leis and Kelly F. Leis, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Castle Rock Lake Campground, LLC, Defendant-Appellant. James Joseph Degenhardt and Janice Ann Degenhardt, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Castle Rock Lake Campground, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.

1

Kassandra Lee Opsahl and Peter C. Opsahl, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Castle Rock Lake Campground, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.

Jane Leis and Kelly F. Leis, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Castle Rock Lake Campground, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.

James Joseph Degenhardt and Janice Ann Degenhardt, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Castle Rock Lake Campground, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 2024AP2364, 2024AP2365, 2024AP2366

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District IV

April 9, 2026

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.

APPEALS FROM JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR JUNEAU COUNTY, NOS. 2024SC345, 2024SC394, 2024SC398 STACY A. SMITH JUDGE.

BLANCHARD, J. ^[1]

¶1 The operator of a private campground, Castle Rock Lake Campground, LLC ("Castle Rock"), appeals small claims judgments in favor of three families who sought to use the campground for the 2024 season.

The families contracted with Castle Rock to camp there, but shortly after they arrived, they were ejected by Alex Wodlarksi, the campground owner. Wodlarski took the position that the ejection was justified because the families violated their contracts. The circuit court found to the contrary that Castle Rock ejected the campers because Wodlarski was upset with the campers for lodging grievances about the campground and not because the campers violated their contracts. Based on Castle Rock's breach of the contracts, the court awarded the families as damages amounts equaling the seasonal fees that they had paid. On appeal, Castle Rock primarily argues that the court misinterpreted the contract terms.

¶2 I apply the pertinent contract terms to the findings of the circuit court, which Castle Rock does not show were clearly erroneous. This leads to my conclusion that the campers established that Castle Rock breached the contracts. I also conclude that Castle Rock fails to show that the fees paid by the campers do not represent a proper measure of damages under the circumstances.

BACKGROUND

¶3 The campers were Kassandra Opsahl and Peter Opsahl, James Degenhardt and Janice Degenhardt, and Jane Leis and Kelly Leis. They filed three small claims actions in June 2024 filing similar complaints, each naming Castle Rock as the defendant.^[2] Each set of campers sought $2,865 in damages, which the Opsahls in particular described as a "full refund" of the fees that they paid Castle Rock under the seasonal contracts.

¶4 The Opsahls' complaint included the most detailed allegations, which included the following. The three families each signed contracts with Castle Rock to use the campground during the 2024 camping season (April to October). But Castle Rock delayed the date on which the campers could occupy their respective camping sites by several weeks and changed the sites that the campers were to occupy. Further, once they arrived at the campground, the campers learned that Castle Rock had established a walking trail unreasonably near the sites and also that various promised amenities did not exist. The campers also alleged that Castle Rock erroneously designed the sites, which resulted in the campers having to remove their trailers from their assigned sites to allow for fixes. In light of these grievances, the campers asked Castle Rock if they could terminate their contracts and receive partial refunds. Castle Rock told the campers that there would be no refunds of any amount. The campers moved their possessions from the campsites to allow Castle Rock to make needed changes to the sites. The campers emailed Castle Rock requesting that it inform them when they could return. Castle Rock responded by email, stating that it was ejecting them from the campground.

¶5 In response to the complaints, Castle Rock filed brief answers alleging that it had ejected the campers based on their "inappropriate behavior and conduct," and that the campers were not entitled to refunds under the terms of their contracts.

¶6 The circuit court held a small claims trial in October 2024, jointly addressing the three sets of shared claims made by the campers and Castle Rock's defenses, with the court acting as the finder of fact. The Opsahls, Jane Leis, James Degenhardt, and Wodlarski testified.

¶7 The following facts were undisputed at trial. In November 2023, each set of campers entered into an identical "Seasonal Agreement" with Castle Rock, which I refer to as the contract or contracts. Under the contracts, the campers agreed to pay $2,865 per family in exchange for access to the campground for the 2024 camping season, including the right to occupy three sites for their vehicles and equipment. The campers "agree[d] to be bound by and comply with" Castle Rock's "rules and regulations," and they each signed a document entitled "Campground Rules." The contracts also state that there could be "[n]o refunds for all seasonal site fees or park model sales deposits/payments[;] this is non-negotiable."

¶8 Central to the issues on appeal, the campground rules included the following as the first rule:

Safety is the Campground's #1 priority. Those not following our rules, regulations (and [who engage in] other acts and behaviors not deemed appropriate as determined by Management), will be asked to immediately leave the Campground without any refund(s). Lack of common sense or ignorance is not an excuse for inappropriate behavior or rule breaking.

¶9 The circuit court ruled in favor of the campers, awarding three money judgments, each for $2,865, plus costs. Castle Rock appeals each judgment.

DISCUSSION

¶10 Beginning with a terminology point, this opinion refers to relevant conduct of Castle Rock as "the ejection" of the campers from the campground. The circuit court and the parties have used variations on the words "remove" and "termination" in referring the Castle Rock's notice to the campers that: it was declaring the contractual relationship terminated; the campers could not return to the campground; and Castle Rock would make no refunds of fees. For this concept, I use "eject" and "ejection," which is a term that Wodlarski used in his trial testimony.

¶11 Castle Rock argues that the circuit court erred in failing to properly apply the language of the contracts, because the court failed to recognize that the contracts give Castle Rock authority to eject guests whom Castle Rock deemed were not following its rules. Castle Rock contends that the court effectively rewrote the contracts to include terms not present in unambiguous language. For example, Castle Rock argues that the court inserted the requirement that Castle Rock show "reasonable grounds" to eject the campers.

¶12 Castle Rock's arguments all fail because they fail to come to grips with the relevant findings of the circuit court, which Castle Rock does not show were clearly erroneous. Notably, this included a finding that Wodlarski was not credible when he testified that he decided that the campers violated a campground rule, including by acting inappropriately. Taken together, the court's findings establish that Castle Rock breached the contracts by ejecting the campers, because Wodlarski was aware that he lacked a contract-based reason to do so. After summarizing the pertinent legal standards and additional background from the trial, I explain this conclusion further.

¶13 This court will not disturb relevant circuit court findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Buddy's Plant Plus Corp. v. Viking Masek Glob. Packaging Techs., LLC, 2025 WI.App. 46, ¶22, 417 Wis.2d 723, 25 N.W.3d 613 (citing WIS. STAT. § 805.17(2)). This court reviews de novo both the meaning of contract language and whether the facts found by the circuit court constitute a breach of contract. Id., Steele v. Pacesetter Motor Cars, Inc., 2003 WI.App. 242, ¶10, 267 Wis.2d 873, 672 N.W.2d 141.

Additional Background

¶14 The campers testified to various grievances, consistent with the allegations in the complaints. Their grievances included the delay in a start date, the changing of assigned sites shortcomings in amenities (such as Wi-Fi access), and the walking trail in an inopportune location. The campers also testified to flaws in the placement of gravel pads for recreational vehicles, which were flaws that the campers understood required them to move their vehicles and equipment so that the pads could be fixed.

¶15 For the most part, Wodlarski in his trial testimony did not dispute the campers' testimony regarding their grievances. But he provided context from his perspective. For example, regarding some of the issues involving amenities, Wodlarski testified that he had clearly explained to the campers before they signed the contracts that Castle Rock planned to add some of the amenities in the future and that these amenities would not be available at the start of the 2024 camping season. Regarding the need to fix alleged defects in the gravel pads, Wodlarski testified that he merely informed the campers that one of their trailers needed to be reoriented to permit a utilities hook-up.

¶16 The two sides disputed the tone and nature of a contentious conversation that the campers had with Wodlarski about the campers' grievances. One camper testified that both sides used a "matter of fact" tone. Another camper testified that this conversation was "heated," but that it did not involve any "hollering." Wodlarski testified that the conversation was "concerning]" to him and "upset[ing]" to him, but that it was not "heated enough that [Wodlarski] felt [that he] needed to call the police."

¶17 Later on during the same day as this conversation, the campers removed their vehicles and equipment from the sites. The next day, the campers sent a joint email to Wodlarski. They stated that they recognized that their conversation of the...