James Joseph Degenhardt v. Castle Rock Lake Campground, LLC

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.
April 9, 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 Nos. 2024AP2364 Cir. Ct. Nos. 2024SC345
2024SC394
2024AP2365 2024SC398
2024AP2366
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV

NO. 2024AP2364

KASSANDRA LEE OPSAHL AND PETER C. OPSAHL,

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V.

CASTLE ROCK LAKE CAMPGROUND, LLC,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Nos. 2024AP2364
2024AP2365
2024AP2366

NO. 2024AP2365

JANE LEIS AND KELLY F. LEIS,

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V.
CASTLE ROCK LAKE CAMPGROUND, LLC,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

NO. 2024AP2366

JAMES JOSEPH DEGENHARDT AND JANICE ANN DEGENHARDT,

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V.

CASTLE ROCK LAKE CAMPGROUND, LLC,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEALS from judgments of the circuit court for Juneau County:
STACY A. SMITH, Judge. Affirmed.

¶1 BLANCHARD, J.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.

1
This court consolidates these three appeals on its own motion. WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.10(3) (2023-24). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.
These appeals are decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(a).

2
Nos. 2024AP2364
2024AP2365
2024AP2366

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.

2
For purposes of this appeal, there is no dispute about Wodlarski’s ownership of Castle
Rock or about his ability to speak on its behalf. Therefore, there is no reason to recognize any
distinctions between Wodlarski’s acts and Castle Rock’s acts.

3
Nos. 2024AP2364
2024AP2365
2024AP2366

¶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.

4
Nos. 2024AP2364
2024AP2365
2024AP2366

¶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

5
Nos. 2024AP2364
2024AP2365
2024AP2366

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

6
Nos. 2024AP2364
2024AP2365
2024AP2366

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 “concern[ing]” to him

7
Nos. 2024AP2364
2024AP2365
2024AP2366

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 previous day had become “heated.” The email further stated
that:

As a group we decided to pull our campers off of the sites.
We found temporary alternative sites until you are able to
place the gravel pads in the appropriate places, extend the
internet so we have internet access, and place the walking
path. Please let us know when this is completed and we are
able to return. We ask that you would consider a partial
refund for our inconvenience and the additional expenses
incurred due to alternative site rentals. We placed our
campers on the pads that you had placed for us. We built
our decks and placed our storage buildings as well. We
removed everything to allow you to lay[ ]out the lots as you
intended. We are hopeful that you will complete this work
in a timely fashion.

¶18 Wodlarski testified that, after the campers sent this email to him,
other guests at the campground told Wodlarski that the campers had “yelled and
screamed” at these other guests. Wodlarski further testified that “[o]ther campers
expressed concerns which made my park feel unsafe, and thus I had to eject them
from the campground.”

¶19 Wodlarski emailed a letter in response, bearing the subject line,
“Notice to Seasonal Guest Immediately Terminating Agreement.” This letter
stated, in pertinent part:

Castle Rock Lake Campground … has determined
that it is in the best interests of the Campground and its

8
Nos. 2024AP2364
2024AP2365
2024AP2366

guests to terminate your Seasonal Agreement and remove
you from the Campground.…

You failed to follow the first rule in the
campground rules document [and] you are no longer
welcome at the campground. You failed to follow the first
rule by yelling and swearing at me, as well as other guests
at the park. These behaviors were also displayed by your
children. These behaviors are not tolerated.

The letter further quoted the allegedly violated rule, which to repeat stated, “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).”

¶20 The circuit court found that, after Castle Rock delayed in allowing
the campers to move their recreational vehicles onto the campground property, the
sites designated for the campers were not properly prepared. The parties had a
conversation in which both sides became “heated.” But, the court also found, the
conversation “wasn’t extremely loud.” The court described the campers as “a
little upset” due to amenities issues. The court further noted that no other
campground guests testified, leaving no corroboration for Wodlarski’s testimony
that the campers behaved inappropriately toward, or otherwise bothered, other
guests.

¶21 The court also found that, once Wodlarski received the email from
the campers stating their intent to return to the campground after the pads were
fixed, Wodlarski decided that he was “done with” the campers because he was
“ticked off” at them. It follows from this finding that the court did not credit
Wodlarski’s testimony to the effect that he had made a determination that the
campers violated a campground rule or otherwise acted inappropriately. Instead,
the court found, he decided to eject them merely because he was frustrated by their

9
Nos. 2024AP2364
2024AP2365
2024AP2366

grievances. Put differently, the court found that the ejection was not based on a
contract violation but instead was based on personal pique.

Analysis

¶22 Based on the factual findings made by the circuit court, I conclude
that the campers proved that Castle Rock breached the contracts, because at the
time of the ejection Wodlarski did not in fact determine that the campers had not
followed Castle Rock’s rules, including the rule barring acts that Castle Rock
viewed as inappropriate. See Steele, 267 Wis. 2d 873, ¶10 (“In evaluating a
breach of contract claim, a court must determine whether a valid contract exists,
whether a party has violated its terms, and whether any such violation is material
such that it has resulted in damages.” (citing Management Computer Servs., Inc.
v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie Co., 206 Wis. 2d 158, 178-83, 557 N.W.2d 67 (1996))).
Instead, he ejected them merely because he was, in the words of the court, “ticked
off” at them for raising grievances. In short, Castle Rock accepted payment from
the campers, but then denied them the benefit they had paid for, without a basis
under the contract to do so. That is, Castle Rock’s “performance” under the
contracts was “due,” but it failed to perform consistently with its obligations. See
id., ¶11 (failure to fully perform when performance is due is a breach).

¶23 Explaining further, stated in terms of the campground rules, the
court essentially found that Castle Rock did not in fact “deem[]” or “determine[]”
that any of the campers’ “act and behaviors” were “[in]appropriate.” As a result,
there was no basis under this rule to have the campers “immediately leave …
without any refund[].” The ejection prevented the campers from receiving the
benefit to them of the contracts, namely, the right to camp there for the 2024
season. Castle Rock identifies no provision in the contract that allowed Castle

10
Nos. 2024AP2364
2024AP2365
2024AP2366

Rock to unilaterally prohibit the campers from receiving the campground access
that they paid for absent an actual determination by Castle Rock that the rules had
been violated, including the rule barring conduct that Castle Rock deemed
inappropriate.

¶24 Castle Rock contends that the circuit court erred by requiring it to
prove that the campers were “disorderly and loud” before Castle Rock could be
justified in ejecting them. This argument is based on the following statement of
the court: “[F]or this contract dispute … I think [Castle Rock] would have had to
prove at least that [it] had reasonable grounds to remove [the campers]. And
[Castle Rock would] have to prove that they were, in essence, disorderly, loud.” I
interpret the court’s use of “reasonable grounds” to mean only the following.
Castle Rock was required to show, but could not show, that there was in fact some
violation of the campground rules, including the inappropriate-in-Castle-Rock’s-
view rule, as opposed to merely emotions generated by heated conservation.
Further, whatever the court might have intended to convey in making this
particular comment, it does not change relevant findings of the court that I
independently conclude are dispositive, as explained above.3

3
I need not reach what appears to be an argument by the Opsahls on appeal that the
contracts should be interpreted in light of a statutory rule governing campground operators, but in
any event the rule would appear not to apply here. Explaining further, the Opsahls argue that it
further supports the judgments that Castle Rock violated WIS. STAT. § 707.52 in purporting to
permanently remove them from the campground without notice of alleged violations of
campground rules. Section 707.52(1) places limitations on when a “campground operator” may
“terminate a campground contract because of a campground member’s breach of rules or
regulations or terms or conditions of the campground contract.” However, WIS. STAT. ch. 707
defines many of the operative terms in § 707.52(1) to effectively exclude the contracts here,
because the contracts covered a single camping season, in contrast to the relatively longer-term
contracts that ch. 707 governs. See WIS. STAT. § 707.02(6), (25) (defining “campground
contract” for purposes of ch. 707 in terms of creating a “time-share easement,” which is an
interest in property existing “during at least 4 separated periods over at least 4 years”).

11
Nos. 2024AP2364
2024AP2365
2024AP2366

¶25 Castle Rock also points out that the circuit court made the
observation that the owner of a campground “can’t have thin skin if people are
upset” with the conditions of the campground amenities and the condition of the
sites. It is not clear what conclusion Castle Rock would have this court draw from
the circuit court’s observation that could support reversal. Castle Rock’s argument
appears to boil down to the contention that the court inappropriately second-
guessed Wodlarski’s decision-making as Castle Rock’s owner. I reject the
argument, because the court’s comment appears to have been merely a contextual
observation to the effect that Wodlarski ejected the campers based on his
emotions, and not based on his consideration of relevant contract terms, and there
is record evidence to support the court’s view.

¶26 Castle Rock contends that the circuit court signaled error by
referring to Wodlarski’s decision to terminate the contracts as “retaliatory.” Castle
Rock argues that the court’s use of this term invoked landlord-tenant law, in
particular rules prohibiting retaliation by landlords against residential tenants in
response to the tenants exercising certain rights. See WIS. STAT. § 704.45
(Retaliatory conduct in residential tenancies prohibited). Castle Rock contends
that campgrounds are not subject to such a rule.4 Assuming without deciding that
this is a correct statement of law for purposes of these appeals, this does not help
Castle Rock. This is because I interpret the court’s use of the word “retaliatory” as
merely reflecting the court’s view that Wodlarski had an emotion-driven

4
At trial, the campers did not appear to dispute Castle Rock’s position that the contracts
did not constitute leases subject to the provisions of WIS. STAT. ch. 704. Further, the circuit court
agreed with Castle Rock on this point.

12
Nos. 2024AP2364
2024AP2365
2024AP2366

motivation for ejecting the campers, and not a motivation based on the conclusion
that the campers had actually violated a rule, including by acting inappropriately.

¶27 Castle Rock states as a broad proposition that, when one party to a
contract “decides to stop doing business with the other party,” then the second
party is free to “retaliat[e]” by doing business with others. Whatever merit this
proposition has in other contexts, it is not relevant here. Castle Rock’s decision
“to stop doing business with” the campers was unilateral; there is no dispute that
the campers expressed a desire to return to the campground.

¶28 Turning to the determination of damages, the circuit court here had
“broad discretion” on this topic. See Champion Cos. of Wis., Inc. v. Stafford
Dev., LLC, 2011 WI App 8, ¶11, 331 Wis. 2d 208, 794 N.W.2d 916; Kersten v.
H.C. Prange Co., 186 Wis. 2d 49, 59-60, 520 N.W.2d 99 (Ct. App. 1994) (“This
court must sustain a damage award if there is any credible evidence that under any
reasonable view supports it and removes the issue from the realm of conjecture.”).
The court here implicitly found that the amounts that the campers paid in fees for
the entire season constitute a reasonable approximation of their damages under the
circumstances. See Kersten, 186 Wis. 2d at 60 (“‘Damages for breach of contract
need not be ascertainable with absolute exactness or mathematical precision. The
evidence is sufficient if it enables the fact-finder to make a fair and reasonable
approximation.’” (quoted source omitted)). The camping fees on their face
represent the court’s estimation of the value that the parties placed on the right to
camp at Castle Rock for the 2024 season. See Peterson v. Cornerstone Prop.
Dev., LLC, 2006 WI App 132, ¶50, 294 Wis. 2d 800, 720 N.W.2d 716 (“under
general principles of contract law, ‘[a]n injured party is entitled to the benefit of
his agreement, which is the net gain he would have realized from the contract but

13
Nos. 2024AP2364
2024AP2365
2024AP2366

for the failure of the other party to perform’” (quoting Thorp Sales Corp. v. Gyuro
Grading Co., 111 Wis. 2d 431, 438-39, 331 N.W.2d 342 (1983))). Accordingly,
this approximated the value that the campers were deprived of here, because
Castle Rock purported to terminate the contracts before the campers had stayed at
the campground for a single weekend. Castle Rock does not contend that this was
an erroneous approach to measuring damages.

¶29 Castle Rock’s opposition to the damages apparently rests largely on
the fact that the contracts state that Castle Rock would not provide any refunds.
But this provision is immaterial. It is true that the campers’ complaint framed
their damages request in terms of refunding their camping fees, but that was
simply one way of characterizing potential damages. What matters are the
relevant facts, not any characterization, and the court credited evidence to the
effect that the campers intended to return to the campground right up to the point
when Castle Rock decided to eject them, terminating the contracts. Under the
circumstances, the consequences of Castle Rock terminating the contracts was not
to fail to refund camping fees, per se, but instead to deprive the campers of the
right to camp at Castle Rock. See id. (consequential damages for a breach of
contract are “‘such damages as are the natural and probable consequences of the
breach and were within contemplation of the parties when the contract was made’”
(quoted source omitted)).

¶30 Castle Rock takes issue with comments by the circuit court
suggesting the view that Castle Rock had a duty to mitigate its damages by trying
to find other parties to contract for the sites that the campers vacated due to the
ejection. But the court made clear that it did not need to address mitigation, and

14
Nos. 2024AP2364
2024AP2365
2024AP2366

Castle Rock fails to show how the court’s comments bear on whether it was
appropriate to award the plaintiffs judgments in the amount of the camping fees.

CONCLUSION

¶31 For all of these reasons, the judgments of the circuit court are
affirmed.

By the Court.—Judgments affirmed.

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

15