A dispute over whether a group of siblings had their property rights taken without compensation during the construction of a high voltage transmission line was resolved this week when the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of their claims. The case centers on whether a document recorded by family members created a compensable property interest in the air, light, and view above their parents’ land, which was crossed by an easement for the new power line.
The appeal was filed by Hollfelder Living Trust dated December 6, 2012, Danny R. Stormer, Lisa M. Stormer, Michael R. Hollfelder, and Tera A. Hollfelder against American Transmission Company LLC, ATC Management Inc., and Dairyland Power Cooperative. The case was heard in Dane County Circuit Court and decided on April 2, 2026.
According to court documents, Roger and Laura Hollfelder acquired approximately 120 acres in Cross Plains, Wisconsin in 1979. In subsequent years, they gifted parcels to each of their children and spouses for residential use. In January 2020, American Transmission Company (ATC) informed the parents it intended to acquire an easement over part of their property for a high voltage transmission line. After notification but before condemnation proceedings began in August 2021, the parents and siblings recorded with the county register of deeds a document titled “Easement of Air, Light, and View.” This document stated its purpose as guaranteeing that “the aesthetics, character, and uses” of all parcels would be preserved.
In April 2022, both parents and siblings appealed in circuit court regarding compensation awarded for the easement taken by ATC on the parents’ land. On motion from ATC for partial summary judgment, the court dismissed the siblings as plaintiffs because their own parcels were not directly affected by ATC’s easement; only adjacent parental land was involved.
Subsequently in 2024, each sibling filed separate suits alleging inverse condemnation under Wisconsin Statute §32.10—claiming that ATC’s construction amounted to an unconstitutional taking without just compensation because it infringed upon what they argued were enforceable rights established by the air, light, and view document. They sought just compensation for loss in value to their parcels as well as litigation expenses and injunctive relief.
ATC moved for summary judgment dismissing these consolidated cases. The circuit court concluded that while damages may have occurred due to proximity to the new transmission line on adjacent property owned by their parents—these were consequential damages not compensable under state or federal takings clauses unless there was a direct compensable property interest.
On appeal to District IV of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals (No. 2025AP206), Judge Kloppenburg wrote that although the recorded document did create a restrictive covenant limiting permissible uses (such as ensuring rural residential character), it did not convey an easement or any right allowing entry or use over another’s parcel—nor did it establish a compensable property interest recognized under takings jurisprudence: “the siblings fail to cite legal authority showing that the restrictive covenant establishes a compensable property interest … based on a right recognized under takings jurisprudence.”
The opinion further noted that while restrictive covenants can be enforceable between parties—such as preventing certain uses—they do not automatically rise to constitutionally protected interests requiring compensation if impacted by public projects like utility lines: “There is no Wisconsin case law establishing that a restrictive covenant is a property interest that is compensable if taken for public use.”
The appellate court also distinguished this case from non-Wisconsin precedents cited by plaintiffs where courts found restrictive covenants could be compensable interests if violated; here there was no deed or plat conveying such rights nor absolute restriction imposed—rather only language seeking preservation “to the extent possible.” Without clear legal precedent supporting such claims under state law or takings doctrine—and given no physical occupation or direct interference with plaintiffs’ own parcels—the appeals court affirmed summary judgment dismissing all claims.
The plaintiffs were represented through various stages but attorney names are not specified in this decision notice; Judge Stephen E. Ehlke presided at circuit level with appellate review conducted before Graham P.J., Blanchard J., and Kloppenburg J.; Case ID: 2025AP206.
