Donald Sims v. Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church, Inc.

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
February 3, 2026
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2025AP1169 Cir. Ct. No. 2021CV6236

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I

DONALD SIMS,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V.

JERUSALEM MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, INC., ANTOINETTE REDD
AND VIRGIL STEPHENS,

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
MICHAEL J. HANRAHAN, Judge. Affirmed.

¶1 WHITE, C.J.1 Donald Sims appeals from the order holding him in
contempt of court and imposing remedial sanctions. The circuit court did so after

1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(e) (2023-24).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.
No. 2025AP1169

it found that Sims had violated an earlier court order which had dismissed his
amended complaint and made additional substantive holdings. Sims argues that
the circuit court did not have the necessary subject matter jurisdiction to conduct
further proceedings after this court affirmed the dismissal of his case and remitted
it back to the circuit court without instructions. Sims also argues that the order
that the circuit court found he violated did not impose any affirmative duties on his
part, and that the circuit court therefore erroneously exercised its discretion when
it found him in contempt and imposed remedial sanctions.

¶2 For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶3 On June 28, 1967, Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church (the
“Church”) registered as a non-profit corporation with the State of Wisconsin. The
incorporator was Donnie Sims, the father of Plaintiff-Appellant Donald Sims. The
original bylaws of the Church were also filed on that same day. In 2016, the
Board of Directors of the Church adopted new bylaws, which provided in part that
“[t]he Pastor is the chief executive officer of the Church and shall have the general
oversight and supervision of the business and spiritual affairs of the Church and its
ministries.”

¶4 In 2019, Donnie Sims proposed that this particular part of the bylaws
be amended to provide that, after his retirement or death, the Successor Pastor of
the Church would have the general oversight and supervision of the spiritual
affairs of the Church, while the Board of Directors would have general oversight
and supervision of the business affairs of the Church. These new bylaws were
drafted with the help of an attorney and adopted by the Board. Donnie Sims

2
No. 2025AP1169

passed away in August 2020 and Donald Sims was subsequently installed as the
Successor Pastor of the Church on November 15, 2020.

¶5 Donald Sims filed a declaratory judgment action against the Church
and two fellow members of the Board of Directors, Antoinette Redd and Virgil
Stephens (collectively, “Defendants”), in October 2021. The complaint alleged
that the 2019 bylaws of the Church were “not valid or legally binding” on the
Church, and that the 2016 bylaws “control[led] the actions of the members and
board of directors of the Church.” The complaint alleged several causes of action
and sought both declaratory relief and compensatory damages. An amended
complaint was filed in March 2022.

¶6 In lieu of an answer, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant
to WIS. STAT. § 802.06(2)(a)6. In a written order issued August 30, 2022, the
circuit court2 granted the motion, stating that: (1) the motion to dismiss would be
granted in its entirety; (2) the 2019 Church bylaws were the governing bylaws of
the Church; (3) all conduct engaged in by Donald Sims relating to the general
oversight and supervision of the business affairs of the Church since he was
named Successor Pastor was null and void; (4) the Board of Directors consisted of
Donald Sims, Antoinette Redd, Virgil Stephens, and Della Clipps, who were the
directors just prior to Donald Sims being named Successor Pastor; and (5) the

2
Several judges in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court heard parts of this matter. The
Honorable Carl Ashley granted the motion to dismiss. The Honorable Frederick C. Rosa heard
the motion for sanctions while the appeal was pending. The Honorable Michael J. Hanrahan held
an evidentiary hearing and entered orders, including the final order now on appeal, after the case
was remitted to the circuit court after the appeal. We refer to any of the judges as the circuit
court.

3
No. 2025AP1169

amended complaint and the entire case was dismissed with prejudice and without
costs to any party.

¶7 Donald Sims filed a notice of appeal on September 20, 2022 and on
October 4, 2022, the circuit court record was transmitted to this court. Sims filed a
motion to stay the circuit court order pending appeal, which was denied on
December 7, 2022.

¶8 While the decision on the appeal was pending, Sims continued to
manage the business affairs of the Church and refused to provide the Board with
the Church’s business records. Defendants therefore filed a motion to find Sims in
contempt, alleging that Sims violated the circuit court’s order. Sims however
argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the motion because
he had already filed a notice of appeal and the circuit court record had been
transmitted to this court. See WIS. STAT. § 808.075(3) (“[T]he circuit court retains
the power to act on all issues until the record has been transmitted to the court of
appeals.”).

¶9 On June 5, 2023, the circuit court heard the motion for contempt,
issued an oral ruling on June 23, 2023, and incorporated the ruling into a written
order on July 11, 2023. The court ordered that: (1) the court had jurisdiction to
hear the motion; (2) no later than July 24, 2023, Sims would provide the
Defendants with access to business and financial reports of the Church; and (3) the
motion for contempt would be held in abeyance until 11 a.m. on July 28, 2023.

¶10 This court issued its decision on Sims’ original appeal on October
31, 2023, affirming the August 30, 2022 circuit court order without instructions
and remitted the record back to the circuit court on December 11, 2023.

4
No. 2025AP1169

¶11 Following remittitur, the Defendants sent a letter to the circuit court
explaining that “the Board of Directors needs the records from U.S. Bank and any
other financial institutions for the Church to be able to manage the business affairs
of the Church to satisfy the directors’ fiduciary duties,” and requested that the
court enter an order permitting the Board to obtain those records. In a document
entitled, “Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendants’ Proposed Order,” Sims objected to
the proposed order and the continued prosecution of the case. Sims argued that,
“in the absence of a remand order or some other clear directive from the appellate
court,” the circuit court had no authority to act further in the matter given that this
court affirmed the dismissal of the case.

¶12 At a hearing on March 4, 2024, the circuit court rejected Sims’
argument that it had no authority to enforce its earlier order. After an evidentiary
hearing at which the court heard Sims’ testimony, it again rejected Sims’ argument
that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the matter, characterizing the
argument as “absurd and ridiculous”.

¶13 On July 29, 2024, the circuit court issued an oral ruling, finding that
the court had subject matter jurisdiction and could conduct further proceedings.
The rulings were memorialized in an order dated August 6, 2024, permitting
further proceedings on the issue of whether Sims had violated the original order
and allowing the Defendants to conduct discovery as to that specific issue.

¶14 After discovery was conducted, the circuit court ordered that
Defendants file a new motion for contempt addressing the results of discovery.
The Defendants did so, alleging that Sims continued to manage the business
affairs of the Church in violation of the circuit court’s August 2022 order.

5
No. 2025AP1169

¶15 In April 2025, the circuit court granted Defendants’ second motion
for contempt, finding that Sims intentionally and willfully violated the August
2022 court order. The court ordered numerous remedial sanctions against Sims
for his contempt, including that he repay the Church a sum of $36,066.36 for
attorney fees he wrongfully charged to the Church credit card, and pay the
individual defendants the sum of $47,269.10 for attorney fees incurred in
prosecuting the contempt charge. Sims now appeals.

DISCUSSION

¶16 On appeal, Sims makes three arguments: (1) the circuit court did not
have subject matter jurisdiction to continue proceedings after this court affirmed
the circuit court’s original dismissal of the case and remitted it to the circuit court
without instructions; (2) the circuit court’s interpretation of the August 2022 order
went beyond the scope of its plain language; and (3) the circuit court erroneously
exercised its discretion when it found him in contempt and ordered remedial
sanctions.

I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction/Competency

¶17 Sims first argues that the circuit court lacked the necessary subject
matter jurisdiction to conduct further proceedings after this court affirmed the
dismissal of the case and remitted the matter back to the circuit court without
instructions. He points out that the Defendants’ initial motion for contempt was
filed after this court affirmed the August 2022 order of dismissal, and after the
record was transmitted. Sims argues that, in the absence of an order for a new trial
or some other directive from this court, the circuit court had no jurisdiction to act
any further in the case.

6
No. 2025AP1169

¶18 In opposition, the Church points out that, while Sims frames this
issue as a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the proper inquiry is whether the
court lacked competency. The Church argues that the circuit court did not lack
competency to enforce its order. The Church also argues that, if an order or
judgment could not be enforced simply because the adverse party filed an appeal,
every adverse party would file an appeal and thereby escape the effects of the
order or judgment, regardless of whether the appeal was successful. The Church
concludes that the court correctly rejected Sims’ argument that it lacked
competency to enforce its order, agreeing with the court’s characterization of
Sims’ argument being “absurd and ridiculous.”

¶19 At the outset, we agree with the Church’s assertion that this issue is
one of competency, not of subject matter jurisdiction. The Wisconsin Constitution
confers upon the circuit courts “subject matter jurisdiction to entertain actions of
any nature whatsoever.” Van Deurzen v. Yamaha Motor Corp. USA, 2004 WI
App 194, ¶9, 276 Wis. 2d 815, 688 N.W.2d 777 (citation omitted). “Subject
matter jurisdiction is defined as the power of the court to entertain a certain type of
action.” Kohler Co. v. Wixen, 204 Wis. 2d 327, 336, 555 N.W.2d 640 (Ct. App.
1996). Accordingly, “a circuit court is never without subject matter jurisdiction.”
Village of Trempealeau v. Mikrut, 2004 WI 79, ¶1, 273 Wis. 2d 76, 681 N.W.2d
190. “The definition of competency, as accepted in Wisconsin, is the power of a
court to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction.” Kohler Co., 207 Wis. 2d at 337.
“The circuit court’s subject-matter jurisdiction attaches when the complaint is
filed.” State v. Davis, 2023 WI App 25, ¶14, 407 Wis. 2d 783, 991 N.W.2d 491
(citation omitted).

¶20 Sims asserts that, once the principal action was dismissed, and that
dismissal was affirmed by this court without instructions, “the [circuit] court had

7
No. 2025AP1169

neither the jurisdiction nor the competency necessary” to act on the second motion
for contempt. In doing so, Sims primarily relies on our supreme court’s opinion in
Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 2007 WI 97, 303 Wis. 2d 94, 735 N.W.2d
418.

¶21 In Tietsworth, plaintiffs sought to reopen their case and amend their
complaint after the circuit court had dismissed it in its entirety, and the dismissal
had been affirmed on appeal. Id., ¶1. This court had reversed the circuit court’s
determination that it could not reopen the case to amend the complaint without a
clear directive from the court deciding the appeal. Id. Our supreme court
reversed, holding that, in the absence of a remand order in the mandate line or
some other clear directive from the appellate court ultimately deciding the appeal,
the circuit court had no authority to reopen the case for an amended complaint
after the court of appeals had affirmed the dismissal of the complaint in its entirety
on the merits. Id., ¶2.

¶22 In relying on Tietsworth, Sims asserts that proceedings post-appeal
are permitted only when the appellate court issues explicit orders or directions to
conduct further proceedings. Because this court did not issue any explicit orders
or directions to the circuit court to conduct further proceedings, Sims concludes,
the circuit court lacked the authority to entertain the second motion for contempt.

¶23 However, we conclude that Tietsworth is easily distinguished from
the present case. In Tietsworth, our supreme court looked at whether the circuit
court had the authority to reopen a case and allow for the amendment of the
pleadings. Id., ¶¶22, 25. Here, Defendants did not seek to reopen the case after it
was dismissed, nor did they seek to amend their pleadings; these would be clearly
in conflict with this court’s earlier decision which affirmed the dismissal of the

8
No. 2025AP1169

complaint on the merits. See id., ¶32 (“[T]here can be no amendments in the trial
court that conflict with the expressed or implied mandate of the appellate court.”).
Instead, they simply sought to enforce the August 2022 circuit court order, which
not only dismissed the complaint on the merits, but also made substantive rulings
as to Sims’ authority to continue conducting the business affairs of the Church.

¶24 “An order or judgment which requires specific conduct (either to do,
or to refrain from, specific actions) can be enforced by contempt.” Carney v.
CNH Health & Welfare Plan, 2007 WI App 205, ¶17, 305 Wis. 2d 443, 740
N.W.2d 625. In addition, “the courts have inherent power to hold in contempt
those who disobey an order of the court.” J.W. v. M.W.G., 145 Wis. 2d 308, 312,
426 N.W.2d 112 (Ct. App. 1988). The Defendants’ motion for contempt, which
sought to enforce the rulings made in the circuit court order, in no way conflicted
with this court’s affirmation of the dismissal of case on the merits. We therefore
reject Sims’ argument, and conclude that the circuit court had the authority and
competency to entertain the Defendants’ second motion for contempt.

II. Interpretation of the August 2022 Order

¶25 Sims next argues that the circuit court’s interpretation of the August
2022 order was incorrect, as the interpretation went beyond the scope of the plain
language of the order. He insists that the order did not mention any affirmative
duty on his part, and as such, the court’s interpretation was incorrect, and any
failure on Sims’ part to rescind his authority to conduct the business affairs of the
Church cannot be the basis for a contempt motion.

¶26 The Church, however, points out that if Sims believed that the order
was improper, he could have—and should have—raised that issue in his initial
appeal, but he did not. The court interpreted the order as a continuing order

9
No. 2025AP1169

precluding Sims from managing the business affairs of the Church. The Church
insists that Sims’ interpretation of the order is too narrow, and that the court
clearly did not intend for its ruling to be limited to the period of November 15,
2020 to August 30, 2022, which would essentially permit Sims to manage the
business affairs of the Church anytime thereafter.

¶27 An appellate court interprets a circuit court’s order de novo. See
Walt v. City of Brookfield, 2015 WI App 3, ¶19, 359 Wis. 2d 541, 859 N.W.2d
115. In interpreting the meaning of an order, the inquiry begins with the plain
language of the order and extrinsic evidence is only considered if the order’s
language is ambiguous. See id. If the order’s language is unambiguous, the
inquiry ends with the language of the order. Id.

¶28 We begin with the language of the order. The August 2022 order
specifically states:

(1) The defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted in its
entirety.

(2) The Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church Bylaws dated
June 25, 2019 are the governing by-laws of Jerusalem
Missionary Baptist Church.

(3) All conduct engaged in by Donald Sims relating to the
general oversight and supervision of the business affairs of
Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church since November 15,
2020, when he was named the Successor Pastor of the
Church, is null and void and of no legal effect.

(4) The Board of Directors of Jerusalem Missionary Baptist
Church consists of Donald Sims, Antoinette Redd, Virgil
Stephens and Della Clipps, who were the directors of the
Church just prior to November 15, 2020.

(5) The Amended Complaint … filed by the plaintiff,
Donald Sims, as well as this entire case, is hereby
dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any of the
parties.

10
No. 2025AP1169

¶29 Sims’ argument focuses on the language that “[a]ll conduct engaged
in by Donald Sims relating to the general oversight and supervision of the business
affairs of Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church since November 15, 2020 … is
null and void and of no legal effect.” Sims argues that the order does not mention
any affirmative duty, and that to infer from the plain language of the order that he
did have some affirmative duty would create ambiguity in the order. Thus, he
concludes that the court’s interpretation of the order post-appeal was incorrect and
went beyond the scope of the plain language. He therefore insists that any failure
on his part to act affirmatively cannot be the basis for a contempt order.

¶30 We disagree with Sims’ argument. In interpreting the plain language
of the August 2022 order, it is clear that the order was intended not only to
invalidate the actions taken by Sims as Successor Pastor since November 15,
2020, but also to enjoin him from managing the business affairs of the Church
going forward. This is evidenced by the fact that the court specifically ruled that
the 2019 bylaws were the governing bylaws of the Church, and, as previously
noted herein, the 2019 bylaws placed the power of managing the Church business
affairs with the Board of Directors, not with the Successor Pastor. As the United
States Supreme Court stated,“[i]t does not lie in their mouths to say that they have
an immunity from civil contempt because the plan or scheme which they adopted
was not specifically enjoined. Such a rule would give tremendous impetus to the
program of experimentation with disobedience of the law[.]” McComb v.
Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 192 (1949); see also Carney, 305 Wis. 2d
443, ¶17 (stating that the law does not require “that an order contain the specific
term ‘enjoin’ or ‘injunction’ to allow the court to use contempt powers to enforce
its orders”). Sims asks this court to interpret the August 2022 order in a way that

11
No. 2025AP1169

would deprive the order of the power to effectuate its clear purpose, and we
decline to do so.

III. Imposition of Remedial Sanctions, Exercise of Discretion

¶31 Finally, Sims argues that the circuit court failed to properly exercise
its discretion when it found him in contempt of court. He points out that the court
found him in contempt because it believed that he willfully and intentionally
violated the August 2022 order. Specifically, the court determined that Sims had
signed a corporate resolution for borrowing and pledging assets with U.S. Bank,
charged his attorney fees for this case to the Church’s credit card, authorized a pay
increase for himself, and authorized Christmas bonuses for two Church
employees, all after the August 2022 order had been entered.

¶32 Sims also challenges the circuit court’s April 2025 post-appeal
findings, pointing out that “the court failed to consider that the members of the
Church agreed the Church would pay Donald Sims’ attorney fees, and that Donald
Sims did not instruct anyone to pay the fees.” Sims further points to testimony
stating that he was not the one who made the decision to raise his weekly
compensation, nor was he involved in the decision to issue any employee bonus
checks.

¶33 In opposition, the Church argues that the circuit court did not
erroneously exercise its discretion in finding Sims in contempt. The Church
argues that, based on the evidence presented, as well as weighing Sims’ credibility
during his testimony at the evidentiary hearing, the court found that Sims
intentionally and willfully violated the August 2022 order by continuing to
manage the business affairs of the Church. This finding, the Church argues, was a
reasonable exercise of discretion.

12
No. 2025AP1169

¶34 The Church further argues that the remedial sanctions issued were
appropriate for Sims’ misconduct and were authorized by WIS. STAT. § 785.04(1),
and case law. The circuit court entered various remedial sanctions against Sims,
including (1) that he send a letter to U.S. Bank advising that he has no authority to
manage the business affairs of the Church, including issuing checks; (2) ordering
Sims to cease and desist from handling any business affairs of the Church,
including issuing checks and using the credit card issued to him in the name of the
Church; (3) ordering him to direct Church employees to cease and desist from
handling any business affairs of the Church, including issuing checks; (4) ordering
him to reimburse the Church for the attorneys’ fees charged to the Church credit
card for his attorney fees for defending the contempt motion; and (5) ordering him
to reimburse the Defendants for the attorneys’ fees they incurred in prosecuting
the contempt motion.

¶35 We review a circuit court’s use of its contempt power under the
erroneous exercise of discretion standard. City of Wisconsin Dells v. Dells
Fireworks, Inc., 197 Wis. 2d 1, 23, 539 N.W.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1995). “A court
properly exercises discretion when it considers the facts of record under the proper
legal standard and reasons its way to a rational and legally sound conclusion.”
State v. Dukes, 2007 WI App 175, ¶26, 303 Wis. 2d 208, 736 N.W.2d 515.

¶36 As stated previously herein, “[a]n order or judgment which requires
specific conduct (either to do, or to refrain from, specific actions) can be enforced
by contempt.” Carney, 305 Wis. 2d 443, ¶17. “If a court finds contempt under
WIS. STAT. § 785.01(1)(b) has occurred, then the court must consider WIS. STAT.
§ 785.04(1), which provides for remedial sanctions.” Id., ¶24. “If a party has
promptly rectified all or part of a loss that occurred because of violating the order,

13
No. 2025AP1169

the [circuit] court should weigh that in exercising its discretion as to whether a
sanction is required.” Id.

¶37 In this case, there was ample evidence presented by the Church
demonstrating that Sims had violated the August 2022 order, including that:

 On October 6, 2022, 37 days after the order was entered, Sims
executed a Corporate Resolution for Borrowing and Pledging Assets
on behalf of the Church for U.S. Bank, representing that he was
President of the Church; certifying that he was authorized by the
Church to borrow money from the bank and to pledge the Church’s
assets to the bank as security; and representing that two Church
employees were “officers” of the Church.

 Sims never told U.S. Bank that neither he nor the aforementioned
Church employees had the authority to issue checks on behalf of the
Church, and continued to have the employees do so.

 On September 18, 2022, 19 days after the order was entered, Sims
increased his compensation from the Church from $500 per week to
$600 per week.

 On December 18, 2022, less than 4 months after the order was
entered, Sims authorized Christmas bonuses to the aforementioned
Church employees.

 Sims used the Church’s credit card to make 22 payments for his
personal attorneys’ fees between December 5, 2022 and November
1, 2024 in the total amount of $36,066.36. When asked what

14
No. 2025AP1169

authority he had to use the Church’s credit card to pay his personal
expenses, Sims testified that his name was on it.

¶38 Based on the evidence presented at the April 2025 hearing, and
weighing Sims’ credibility, the circuit court found that Sims had intentionally and
willfully violated the August 2022 order by continuing to manage the business
affairs of the Church. The court thereby imposed specific remedial sanctions
designed to end Sims’ continued unlawful control over the Church’s business
affairs.

¶39 We cannot conclude that the circuit court erroneously exercised its
discretion in entering the April 2025 contempt order. The court reviewed the
parties’ briefs and held an evidentiary hearing at which Sims himself testified. It
was within the court’s discretion to weigh the credibility of the parties and to
determine whether the alleged actions taken by Sims violated the court order. The
court’s remedial sanctions were specifically designed and tailored to bring Sims
into compliance with the August 2022 order and end Sims’ control over the
business affairs of the Church.

CONCLUSION

¶40 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court order finding
Sims in contempt of court and ordering remedial sanctions.

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

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

15