A recent decision has upheld money judgments for three families who were removed from a private campground after raising concerns about site conditions and amenities, confirming that the operator failed to honor its contractual obligations. The appeals court released its opinion on April 9, 2026, affirming previous circuit court rulings in favor of the plaintiffs and against Castle Rock Lake Campground, LLC.
The complaints were filed in June 2024 by Kassandra Lee Opsahl and Peter C. Opsahl, Jane Leis and Kelly F. Leis, and James Joseph Degenhardt and Janice Ann Degenhardt in Juneau County Circuit Court. The defendant named in each case was Castle Rock Lake Campground, LLC. All three cases were consolidated on appeal.
According to the court documents, each family entered into identical contracts with Castle Rock Lake Campground in November 2023 for use of camping sites during the 2024 season, agreeing to pay $2,865 per family for access from April to October. Shortly after arriving at the campground, all three families were ejected by Alex Wodlarski, identified as the owner of Castle Rock Lake Campground. Wodlarski asserted that the ejections were justified due to violations of campground rules by the campers.
The plaintiffs alleged several grievances: delayed access to their sites by several weeks, changes to assigned sites upon arrival, proximity of a walking trail to their locations, lack of promised amenities such as Wi-Fi access, and improper preparation of gravel pads requiring them to move their trailers for repairs. After discussing these issues with management and requesting partial refunds—which were denied—the families temporarily vacated their sites so improvements could be made and asked when they could return. Instead, they received notice via email that they had been permanently ejected from the campground.
Castle Rock’s written response cited “inappropriate behavior and conduct” as grounds for removal and pointed to a contract clause stating there would be no refunds under any circumstances. At trial in October 2024 before Judge Stacy A. Smith, both sides presented testimony regarding these events. While Wodlarski maintained that he acted within his rights under the contract’s rules—which allow management discretion over what constitutes inappropriate behavior—the court found otherwise.
The circuit court determined that Wodlarski’s testimony lacked credibility regarding claims of rule violations or disorderly conduct by the campers or their children. The judge found no corroborating evidence from other guests supporting Wodlarski’s account and concluded that his decision was motivated instead by frustration over grievances raised by the families rather than any actual breach of campground rules.
In affirming this judgment on appeal, Judge Blanchard wrote: “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.” The appellate opinion emphasized that although contracts allowed management broad authority over guest conduct, there must still be an actual determination based on evidence—not merely personal dissatisfaction—before exercising such authority.
Castle Rock argued unsuccessfully that it should not have been required to show “reasonable grounds” for removal beyond its own determination under contract terms. The appellate court rejected this position: “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.” It further noted that provisions barring refunds did not shield Castle Rock from liability when it failed to deliver contracted services.
Each plaintiff family sought $2,865 in damages—the full amount paid for seasonal access—and this sum was awarded by both lower and appellate courts as a reasonable approximation of losses suffered due to being deprived of use for which they had contracted but never received: “The camping fees on their face represent the court’s estimation of value … because Castle Rock purported to terminate the contracts before the campers had stayed at the campground for a single weekend,” according to Judge Blanchard’s opinion.
Castle Rock also contended unsuccessfully that comments made by Judge Smith referencing retaliatory motives or landlord-tenant law should affect judgment; however, both trial and appellate courts held these references merely described motivation rather than imposing irrelevant legal standards.
Ultimately, all judgments against Castle Rock Lake Campground were affirmed with each plaintiff receiving damages equal to their seasonal fees plus costs. Attorneys’ names are not specified in this document; Judge Stacy A. Smith presided at trial level while Judge Blanchard authored the appellate opinion consolidating cases Nos. 2024AP2364, 2024AP2365, and 2024AP2366.
Source: 2024AP2364_Opsahl_v_Castle_Rock_Lake_Campground_LLC_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
