Case Title: Mark J. Solowicz v. Forward Geneva National

Citation: 2010 WI 20

Docket Number: 2008AP000010

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2010-03-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
2010 WI 20 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP10 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
Mark J. Solowicz, Jesse E. Soltis and Stephen J. 
Havey, 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, 
     v. 
Forward Geneva National, Geneva National Trust, 
Geneva National Sales Center, LLC, Geneva 
National Retail Corp., Geneva National Community 
Assoc., Inc., Geneva National Condominium Master 
Assoc., Inc., Geneva Woods, Inc., Harlow GN, 
LLC, Lowell Management Services, Inc., GN 
Storage II, LLC, Lowell Properties, LLC, Geneva 
National Community Services, LLC, Geneva 
National Development Corp., Foxwood at Geneva 
National, LLC, Bayside Pointe Land Development, 
LLC and Paloma Geneva National, LLC, 
          Defendants-Respondents. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
2009 WI App 9 
Reported at: 316 Wis. 2d 211, 763 N.W.2d 828 
(Ct. App. 2009-Published) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 24, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
September 18, 2009   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Walworth   
 
JUDGE: 
James L. Carlson and Michael S. Gibbs   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., concurs (opinion filed). 
 
BRADLEY, J., concurs (opinion filed). 
PROSSER, J., joins concurrence. 
 
PROSSER, J., concurs (opinion filed).   
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners there were briefs 
by Martin J. Greenberg, Brad L. F. Hoeschen, Jordana Thomadsen, 
 
 
2 
Jill Draeger, and Greenberg & Hoeschen, LLC, Madison, and oral 
argument by Brad L. F. Hoeschen. 
 
For the defendants-respondents there was a brief by John P. 
Brady, Bryan W. Edgar, and Weiss Berzowski Brady LLP, Delafield, 
and oral argument by John P. Brady. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by J. Bushnell Nielsen, 
Rebecca Leair, and Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren S.C., Delafield, 
on behalf of the Wisconsin REALTORS® Association, and oral 
argument by J. Bushnell Nielsen. 
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 20
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.    2008AP10 
(L.C. No. 
2007CV185) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Mark J. Solowicz, Jesse E. Soltis and Stephen 
J. Havey,   
 
 
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners,   
 
 
v. 
 
Forward Geneva National, LLC, Geneva National 
Trust, Geneva National Sales Center, LLC, 
Geneva National Retail Corp., Geneva National 
Community Assoc., Inc., Geneva National 
Condominium Master Assoc., Inc., Geneva Woods, 
Inc., Harlow GN, LLC, Lowell Management 
Services, Inc., GN Storage II, LLC, Lowell 
Properties, LLC, Geneva National Community 
Services, LLC, Geneva National Development 
Corp., Foxwood at Geneva National, LLC, Bayside 
Pointe Land Development, LLC, and Paloma Geneva 
National, LLC, 
 
 
Defendants-Respondents.   
FILED 
 
MAR 24, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed.   
 
¶1 
PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J.   We review a decision 
of the court of appeals1 affirming the circuit court's decision2 
                                                 
1 Solowicz v. Forward Geneva Nat'l, 2009 WI App 9, 316 
Wis. 2d 211, 763 N.W.2d 828. 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
2 
 
granting summary judgment in favor of Forward Geneva National, 
LLC, and other defendants (collectively, the Developer) and 
denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.  Both the 
circuit court and the court of appeals agreed that the 
"Declaration 
of 
Covenants, 
Conditions, 
Restrictions 
and 
Easements for the Geneva National Community" (the Community 
Declaration), which controls the overall development of Geneva 
National, does not violate Wis. Stat. ch. 703 (2007–08),3 the 
Condominium Ownership Act.  The court of appeals concluded that 
the Community Declaration established a master-planned community4 
that is not subject to ch. 703 and that the terms of the 
Community Declaration are unambiguous, which "the complainants 
                                                                                                                                                             
2 The 
Honorable Michael S. Gibbs of Walworth County 
presided. 
3 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2007–
08 version unless otherwise noted. 
4 The court of appeals referred to Geneva National as a 
"master-planned community."  Solowicz, 316 Wis. 2d 211, ¶23.  We 
have not employed this term, but rather, refer to Geneva 
National simply as a 1,600 acre planned community.  We have done 
so because, to some extent, the term "master planned community" 
may have become a term of art in those writings that remark upon 
the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (UCIOA).  In the 
UCIOA, "master planned community" is the term employed for 
developments of more than 500 acres, with at least 500 units, 
all of which the developer has subjected to an overarching 
development plan.  UCIOA § 2-123 (2008).  Although Geneva 
National has similarities to a master-planned community as 
defined in the UCIOA, Wisconsin has not enacted a statute 
adopting the UCIOA.  In addition, we have not analyzed the UCIOA 
to determine whether Geneva National complies with all its 
provisions. 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
3 
 
full-well 
knew 
existed" 
before 
they 
purchased 
in 
Geneva 
National.5 
¶2 
Two issues are presented for our review:  (1) whether 
the Community Declaration, which affects the condominiums, is 
either subject to or contravenes Wis. Stat. ch. 703, the 
Condominium Ownership Act; and (2) whether the Community 
Declaration's terms, if unambiguous, must also be reasonable to 
be enforceable.  We conclude that ch. 703 does not apply to the 
Community Declaration because the Community Declaration is not a 
document that creates condominiums.  Rather, the Community 
Declaration provides the overarching development scheme for 
Geneva National, a 1,600 acre planned community.  Moreover, the 
Community Declaration does not contravene the protections of ch. 
703 because the Developer does not exercise particularized day-
to-day 
control 
over 
individual 
condominiums; 
rather, 
particularized day-to-day control of the terms of individual 
condominiums is vested in the unit owners.  Furthermore, because 
the terms of the Community Declaration are unambiguous, those 
terms are not required to be reasonable, as well as unambiguous, 
in order to be enforceable.  Accordingly, we affirm the decision 
of the court of appeals that affirmed the circuit court's 
decision granting the Developer's motion for summary judgment 
and denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. 
                                                 
5 Solowicz, 316 Wis. 2d 211, ¶1. 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
4 
 
I.  BACKGROUND 
¶3 
The relevant facts are undisputed.  Plaintiffs Mark J. 
Solowicz, Jesse E. Soltis and Stephen J. Havey (collectively, 
Solowicz) each purchased a condominium unit in Geneva National, 
a planned community near Lake Geneva, Wisconsin.  Geneva 
National 
was 
designed 
by 
"environmental 
specialists 
and 
engineers to protect the beauty of the environment" while 
offering year round amenities and services to its residents and 
to those who visit Geneva National.6  The community spans 
approximately 1,600 acres and consists of three golf courses, 
racquet and swim clubs, numerous wooded hiking trails, hotels, 
restaurants, private roadways and utilities, single- and multi-
family residences and commercial space.  Geneva National was 
first developed by GN Partners, an Illinois General Partnership.  
Forward Geneva National, LLC is GN Partners' successor in 
interest as the Developer. 
¶4 
The multi-family residential buildings include 32 
parcels of condominiums.7  Each condominium parcel, including the 
three condominium units purchased by plaintiffs, has two 
recorded declarations that apply to it:  the "Declaration of 
Condominium Ownership and of Easements, Restrictions, Conditions 
                                                 
6 www.genevanationalhoa.com, visited March 12, 2010. 
7 The condominium parcels are separated into distinct 
neighborhoods that vary in size and architectural style.  For 
example, The Turn at Geneva National includes two models—The 
Tuscany and The Meadow——and Foxwood at Geneva National spans 65 
acres and is platted for 106 single-family condominium units.  
http://gnbuilders.com/prefbuild.html. 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
5 
 
and Covenants for Geneva National Condominium No. __" (with the 
particular condominium unit number indicated) (the Condominium 
Declaration) and the Community Declaration.  The Community 
Declaration was recorded in the Walworth County Register of 
Deeds Office on May 21, 1990, and each of the Condominium 
Declarations, all dated May 22, 1990, were recorded sometime 
thereafter. 
A.  Condominium Declaration 
¶5 
The Condominium Declaration for each parcel subjects 
that condominium parcel and the condominium units within that 
parcel to the provisions of the Condominium Ownership Act.  Each 
Condominium Declaration required the Declarant to form the 
Geneva 
National 
Condominium 
Master 
Association, 
Inc. 
(Condominium 
Master 
Association), 
pursuant 
to 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 703.155, not later than the date of the first conveyance of a 
condominium unit to a purchaser.  The Declarant properly formed 
the Condominium Master Association.  This association serves all 
residential 
and 
select 
commercial 
condominiums 
at 
Geneva 
National.  The Developer has no control over the Condominium 
Master Association; complete control is vested in its members—
the condominium unit owners.  The Condominium Master Association 
conducts the affairs of the condominium parcels.  Its services 
are limited to maintenance and administration. 
B.  Community Declaration 
¶6 
The Community Declaration is not simply a restrictive 
covenant as the document has been referred to by petitioners and 
in both previous court decisions.  Rather, it is a master 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
6 
 
governance scheme for the entire Geneva National development.  
The document was enacted by the Declarant, whom we also refer to 
as the Developer, Forward Geneva National, LLC.8  The circuit 
court determined the Community Declaration's purpose is to 
promote the orderly development of Geneva National; to control 
the effect of the development to preserve the natural setting; 
to maintain wooded areas, open spaces, recreational areas, 
roadways and other facilities and to subject the development to 
the terms of the Community Declaration for its overall benefit.  
This is accomplished through two governing bodies:  the Geneva 
National Trust (Trust) and the Geneva National Community 
Association (Community Association). 
¶7 
The purpose of the Trust is to preserve and maintain 
the natural environment within Geneva National.  The Trust's 
powers and duties include adopting and enforcing architectural 
standards, adopting and amending rules and regulations governing 
the use of property and granting variances from restrictions set 
forth in the Community Declaration.  The Trust is governed by 
majority vote of three trustees.  If the Trust is unable, fails 
or refuses to act according to its duties, only then can the 
Declarant exercise the Trust's powers.  The Trust is independent 
of, and not accountable to, the Community Association. 
¶8 
The Community Association has various powers, duties 
and responsibilities.  It maintains Geneva National's private 
                                                 
8 GN Partners was the original Declarant, as well as the 
original developer.  Forward Geneva National, LLC is its 
successor in interest in both capacities. 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
7 
 
roadways, medians, entrances and property; provides utilities 
and security services; may levy assessments on property owners; 
may buy or sell property on behalf of the members; may obtain 
loans and may take any other lawful action necessary in the sole 
and absolute discretion of the Board of Directors to exercise 
all powers and discharge all duties and responsibilities of the 
Community Association and to carry out the purpose and intent of 
the Community Declaration.  Its powers are limited to the extent 
that it cannot exercise the powers granted to the Trust.  The 
Community Association is governed by the majority vote of the 
Board of Directors.  The Board of Directors is made up of five 
(originally six) classes of voting members:  the club owners, 
commercial property owners, multiple-family unit owners, single-
family unit owners and the Developer.  Each class of voting 
members elects a representative to sit on the Board of 
Directors, and each representative may cast four votes, except 
the commercial property owners who may cast only three votes. 
¶9 
Article IX of the Community Declaration reserves 
certain rights for the Declarant, two of which are at issue 
here.  The Declarant may amend the Community Declaration without 
approval of any condominium unit owner if the Declarant 
determines that the amendment does not materially alter or 
change any unit owner's right to the use and enjoyment of his or 
her property.  Additionally, the Declarant may exercise the 
powers listed in Article IX until: 
conveyance by Declarant of eighty-five percent (85%) 
of the maximum number of Units which may be located on 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
8 
 
Single-Family Residence Grounds and Multiple-Family 
Residence Grounds within the Property, as determined 
from time to time pursuant to the provisions of the 
applicable zoning laws and ordinances, including any 
variations, 
use 
permits, 
amendments 
and 
other 
modifications thereto enacted by Walworth County, 
Wisconsin or any other governmental unit or agency 
having jurisdiction thereof . . . . 
The maximum number of residential units is 1,960.  As of April 
2007, the Declarant conveyed 1,015 units, approximately 52 
percent of the maximum number.  No other term exists for the 
transition of Declarant control to the property owners. 
¶10 Solowicz sued for declaratory judgment.  Solowicz's 
major complaint is that the Developer, referred to as the 
"Declarant" in the Community Declaration, retains too much 
control over the development of Geneva National.9  In an effort 
to limit the Developer's control, Solowicz sought a declaration 
that Wis. Stat. ch. 703 applies to the Community Declaration, 
that the Community Declaration be deemed invalid for violating 
ch. 703 and that the Developer relinquish control of Geneva 
National to the property owners.  Solowicz further argued that 
even if the Community Declaration is not subject to ch. 703, it 
is invalid because its terms are unreasonable, ambiguous and 
vague.  The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 
¶11 The circuit court granted defendants' motion for 
summary judgment and denied plaintiffs' motion for summary 
judgment.  Finding no genuine issue of material fact, the 
                                                 
9 For 
example, 
Solowicz 
complains 
that 
the 
Developer 
purchased an expensive gate for the entrance to the community 
and then assessed all the owners for that purchase. 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
9 
 
circuit court held that the Community Declaration is not a 
condominium instrument and thus is not subject to ch. 703 and 
that it does not contravene ch. 703 because each individual 
Condominium Declaration is subject to ch. 703 and thus provides 
plaintiffs the protections of the law with regard to the 
particular parcel in which their individual units are located.  
The circuit court further held that the Community Declaration's 
terms were not ambiguous or vague.  Finally, the court held that 
it was precluded from assessing reasonableness because the 
Community Declaration's language is unambiguous.  The court of 
appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision and, in addition 
to the reasons set forth by the circuit court, explained that 
the Community Declaration established a 1,600 acre planned 
community that is not subject to ch. 703. 
¶12 We granted review and now affirm. 
II.  DISCUSSION 
A.  Standard of Review 
¶13 This case requires us to review the circuit court's 
decision granting the Developer's motion for summary judgment.  
We 
review 
a 
decision on a motion for summary judgment 
independently, employing the same methodology as the circuit 
court.  Estate of Genrich v. OHIC Ins. Co., 2009 WI 67, ¶10, 318 
Wis. 2d 553, 769 N.W.2d 481.  Resolution of the first question 
presented requires us to interpret and apply Wis. Stat. ch. 703.  
"'The interpretation and application of a statute to an 
undisputed set of facts are questions of law that we review 
independently.'"  Id. (quoting McNeil v. Hansen, 2007 WI 56, ¶7, 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
10 
 
300 Wis. 2d 358, 731 N.W.2d 273).  Resolution of the second 
question presented requires us to interpret a written document 
affecting land and is a question of law that we review 
independently of the circuit court.  Zinda v. Krause, 191 
Wis. 2d 154, 165, 528 N.W.2d 55 (Ct. App. 1995) (citing Bubolz 
v. Dane County, 159 Wis. 2d 284, 291–92, 464 N.W.2d 67 (Ct. App. 
1990)). 
B.  Application of the Condominium Ownership Act 
¶14 The 
first 
question 
is 
whether 
the 
Community 
Declaration, which established the terms and conditions for the 
development of a 1,600 acre planned community that includes 
condominium parcels, must comply with the Condominium Ownership 
Act (the Act).  See Wis. Stat. ch. 703.  Solowicz argues that 
the Community Declaration is a condominium instrument subject to 
the Condominium Ownership Act. 
¶15 The 
condominium 
declaration 
is 
the 
operative 
instrument that creates a condominium.  See Wis. Stat. § 703.09.  
Chapter 703 applies to all property with a duly executed 
condominium instrument.  Solowicz argues that the Community 
Declaration is a condominium instrument as contemplated by the 
Act because the Developer attached the Community Declaration to 
the individual Condominium Declarations.10  Therefore, Solowicz 
                                                 
10 We, like the circuit court and court of appeals, 
recognize that Solowicz bases his argument in part on an 
advisory memorandum issued by the Wisconsin Attorney General on 
July 21, 2006.  The Memorandum concluded that the Community 
Declaration was in fact subject to Wis. Stat. ch. 703 and thus 
was probably not valid.  Such opinions can be persuasive, but 
they are not binding on this court. 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
11 
 
contends that ch. 703 overrides any contradictory provisions in 
the Community Declaration.  Specifically, Solowicz argues that 
because Article IX of the Community Declaration left the 
Declarant in control of Geneva National for 19 years, it 
violates Wis. Stat. § 703.15(2)(c).11  Excising Article IX would 
result in control of Geneva National being transferred to the 
unit owners.  Similarly, Solowicz argues that the Declarant 
violated § 703.09(2)12 each of the four times it unilaterally 
amended the Community Declaration and that the provisions of the 
Community Declaration allowing such unilateral amendments should 
be excised.  We disagree with Solowicz and decline to excise any 
provisions of the Community Declaration. 
¶16 We conclude that the Community Declaration is not a 
condominium 
instrument 
subject 
to 
ch. 
703; 
rather, 
it 
establishes an overall development scheme for the 1,600 acre 
planned 
community. 
 
Condominium 
instruments 
include 
the 
condominium declaration, plat and plan.  See Wis. Stat. 
§ 703.02(5).  First, to qualify as a condominium declaration, 
the document "shall contain" "a statement of the owner's intent 
to subject the property to the condominium declaration" under 
                                                 
11 Wisconsin Stat. § 703.15(2)(c) requires a declarant to 
relinquish control of a condominium association "[t]hirty days 
after the conveyance of 75% of the common element interest to 
purchasers," 
but 
not 
later 
than 
three 
years 
after 
the 
declaration is recorded or ten years in the case of an 
expandable condominium. 
12 Wisconsin Stat. § 703.09(2) provides:  "[A] condominium 
declaration may be amended with the written consent of at least 
two-thirds" of the unit owners. 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
12 
 
the Act, a name including the word "condominium" and a 
description of the condominium's common elements.13  Wis. Stat. 
§ 703.09(1)(a), (b), (d).  No part of the Community Declaration 
evinces the Declarant's intent to subject all 1,600 acres to ch. 
703; rather, it is the Condominium Declaration for each 
condominium parcel that demonstrates the intent to be subject to 
the Act.  Further, the Community Declaration's full name, 
"Declaration 
of 
Covenants, 
Conditions, 
Restrictions 
and 
Easements for the Geneva National Community," very clearly does 
not include the word condominium.  The Community Declaration 
refers to condominiums only when it references the Condominium 
Declarations, which clearly include the word condominium in 
their title.  Finally, each Condominium Declaration, not the 
Community 
Declaration, 
includes 
a 
description 
of 
the 
condominium's common elements.  The Community Declaration is 
not, nor does it purport to be, a condominium plat.  A 
condominium plat must include a survey of the condominium 
property.  See Wis. Stat. § 703.11(2)(b).  Such plat was 
properly included in each Condominium Declaration, not the 
Community Declaration.  Lastly, the Community Declaration is not 
a condominium plan, which is required to be submitted as part of 
the plat.  See § 703.11(2)(c).  Again, each Condominium 
Declaration, not the Community Declaration, properly shows the 
location of the condominium units. 
                                                 
13 These are only three of the ten requirements necessary to 
create a condominium declaration, none of which is found in the 
Community Declaration.  See Wis. Stat. § 703.09(1)(a)–(j). 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
13 
 
¶17 These shortcomings cannot be salvaged by the Act's 
saving provision in Wis. Stat. § 703.30(2) because the Community 
Declaration cannot be said to "substantially conform with the 
requirements" of the Act.  Thus, the plain language of ch. 703 
makes clear that the Community Declaration is not a condominium 
instrument subject to the Act. 
¶18 Solowicz 
further argues that Geneva National is 
required to comply with the Act because it is a community of 
condominiums and the Community Association is an umbrella 
organization authorized by Wis. Stat. § 703.155(7).14  The 
Developer counters by arguing that Geneva National is not simply 
a community of condominiums, but a 1,600 acre planned community, 
portions of which contain condominiums. 
¶19 We agree with the court of appeals' statement that 
planned communities, such as Geneva National, "are an entirely 
different type and level of development than condominiums."  
Solowicz v. Forward Geneva Nat'l, 2009 WI App 9, ¶23, 316 
Wis. 2d 211, 763 N.W.2d 828.  A condominium is a form of 
ownership of real property that combines two separate forms of 
ownership interest:  the individual ownership of the dwelling 
unit and the undivided common ownership, with other unit owners, 
of the common elements of the condominium parcel.  Joseph W. 
Boucher et al., Wisconsin Condominium Law Handbook § 1.17 (3d 
                                                 
14 Section 703.155(7) provides:  "A master association may 
represent condominium or noncondominium property on behalf of 
one or more condominiums and property under a different form of 
ownership or for the benefit of the unit owners of one or more 
condominiums and the owners of other property." 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
14 
 
ed. 2006).  While we found varying characteristics of similarly 
planned communities, there are several key components that 
appear to be common to most such communities.  First, these 
communities generally are large15 developments that usually 
include a mix of commercial, recreational and residential 
property, including condominiums.  Second, a keystone to such 
communities is an overall development scheme that not only 
permits individual units to operate under their own individual 
governing documents, but also subjects the entire development to 
a master governing body, which ensures the entire community is 
developed according to its stated purpose.16  The communities 
function as semi-autonomous, private quasi-towns. 
                                                 
15 Section 2–123(a) of the UCIOA states that a community 
qualifies as a "master planned community if the declarant has 
reserved the development right to create at least [500] units 
. . . and at the time of the reservation that declarant owns or 
controls more than [500] acres on which the units may be built." 
(Brackets in original.)   
16 The circuit court relied on the Wisconsin Realtors 
Association's (WRA), appearing as amicus curiae, definition of a 
master-planned 
community, 
which 
encompassed 
the 
two 
key 
components described above.  WRA described a master-planned 
community as one which: 
contemplates many parcels, each operating under a 
separate 
ownership regime such as a condominium 
declaration, but all subject to a master set of 
restrictions to give notice to buyers of the intended 
uses and use restrictions, amenities, and governance 
structure.  Most often, the overall community has 
mixed uses, such as single-family residential, multi-
family 
residential, 
commercial, 
and 
recreational.  
Each separate area requires different ownership, with 
a master association to govern the entire development. 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
15 
 
¶20 Geneva 
National 
is 
not 
merely 
a 
community 
of 
condominiums; rather, it is a 1,600 acre planned community that 
includes condominium parcels and other types of ownership.  The 
Community Declaration, Geneva National's overarching development 
plan, guides the development of 1,600 acres according to the 
Developer's vision—"a distinct golf and leisure community."  
Solowicz, 316 Wis. 2d 211, ¶24.  It also serves to protect those 
who purchase within Geneva National by assuring that their 
common interest in developing such a community according to the 
overarching development plan will be honored as development 
continues.  And finally, the recorded Community Declaration 
gives notice to all purchasers of Geneva National's underlying 
terms and conditions. 
¶21 As did the court of appeals, we too conclude that Wis. 
Stat. "ch. 703 [] unambiguously provides no reference whatsoever 
to master-planned communities.  So, the plain meaning of the 
chapter 
is 
that 
it 
simply 
does 
not 
contemplate 
such 
communities."  Id., ¶35.  Accordingly, because the Community 
Declaration establishes the overall development scheme for the 
1,600 acre planned community, it need not comply with ch. 703. 
¶22 Furthermore, the portion of Geneva National that 
Solowicz 
seeks 
to 
control 
is 
not 
the 
32 
residential 
condominiums.  The unit owners already have achieved this.17  
Instead, Solowicz seeks control of the remainder of the 1,600 
acre development.  Accepting Solowicz's argument would mean that 
                                                 
17 See infra ¶¶26, 29–30. 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
16 
 
simply because a developer chooses to include one condominium 
parcel in a 1,600 acre development, the time limitations of ch. 
703—three 
or 
ten 
years—control 
the 
entire 
1,600 
acres.  
Thereafter, development decisions would cede to the then 
existing condominium unit owners.  This surely cannot be the 
case.  Due to the complexity of the development of the large 
planned community, extended developer control is necessary to 
properly market and uniformly develop such property.  See 
Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act § 2-123(g) (2008). 
¶23 Likely anticipating the weakness of the arguments 
addressed above, Solowicz attempts to reinvent his argument by 
asserting that even if the Community Declaration is not a 
condominium instrument and ch. 703 does not directly apply to 
planned communities, the overarching development scheme of 
Geneva National intentionally contravenes the protections of ch. 
703, to which plaintiffs are entitled.  Solowicz cites three 
cases from other jurisdictions that he contends use condominium 
law to limit a developer's control over planned communities.  
All three of the cases cited are distinguishable on their facts, 
and one actually supports the Developer's position.   
¶24 In Fox v. Kings Grant Maintenance Ass'n, 770 A.2d 707 
(N.J. 2001), cited by Solowicz, plaintiffs were 46 condominium 
unit owners in a planned community18 that spanned 1,800 acres 
                                                 
18 The court in this case referred to the community as a 
planned-unit 
development, 
the 
description 
of 
which 
has 
similarities 
to 
a 
planned 
community 
with 
an 
overarching 
development scheme.  See Fox v. Kings Grant Maint. Ass'n, 770 
A.2d 707, 710 (N.J. 2001). 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
17 
 
with a total of 1,447 individually owned units.  The condominium 
association 
was 
required 
to 
turn 
over 
control 
of 
the 
condominium's 
common elements to the community's umbrella 
association, which consisted of non-unit owners.  The umbrella 
association then exercised complete control of "all common 
property," 
including 
common 
elements 
of 
the 
individual 
condominiums.  Id. at 711 (emphasis in original).  The court 
held that New Jersey's condominium act prohibited requiring unit 
owners to delegate their governance rights over the common 
elements of their condominium to the umbrella association.  Id. 
at 709. 
¶25 The Fox court went on to explain that an umbrella 
association is permitted to control "property intended for the 
common and beneficial use of unit owners of several separate 
condominium associations, such as common roadways, common open 
space, and common recreational facilities"; and, that, as long 
as the umbrella association does not infringe on the unit 
owner's 
control 
of 
the 
common 
elements 
of 
individual 
condominiums, the condominium act is not circumvented.  Id.  The 
court demonstrated support for other governance schemes by 
explaining that because of the enormity of such communities, 
control by an umbrella association is "necessary for the 
viability and maintenance of uniform standards."  Id. at 719. 
¶26 Here, the Community Association, which was established 
in the Community Declaration, functions appropriately under 
Fox's description of a lawful umbrella association.  It retains 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
18 
 
no control whatsoever over the Condominium Master Association,19 
which is the governing body that retains sole and complete 
control over the management and governance of the residential 
condominium parcels, including their common elements.20  Stated 
otherwise, the Community Association's powers are limited to 
those 
Fox 
approved. 
 
Accordingly, 
Fox 
does 
not 
support 
Solowicz's argument that Geneva National's governance scheme 
contravenes ch. 703. 
¶27 Solowicz next relies on Brandon Farms Property Owners 
Ass'n v. Brandon Farms Condominium Ass'n, 852 A.2d 132 (N.J. 
2004), which held that under New Jersey's condominium act, a 
declaration may not make a condominium association responsible 
for an association member's failure to pay assessments owed to 
an umbrella association.  Id. at 133–34.  Geneva National's 
Community Declaration does not contain such a provision.  To the 
contrary, the Community Declaration provides for the assessment 
of unit owners directly; it does not pass assessments through 
the Condominium Master Association as occurred in Brandon Farms. 
                                                 
19 The Condominium Master Association is controlled by its 
Executive Board, which is comprised of "one individual elected 
from each condominium."  The Executive Board in turn elects five 
Executive Board members to the Executive Committee.  It is this 
Executive Committee that has complete control over administering 
the affairs of the condominium property pursuant to the 
Condominium Declaration, the common elements of the condominiums 
and the annual budget and assessments imposed on unit owners. 
20 The common elements include internal roads, common area 
utilities, swimming pools, landscaping, etc. 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
19 
 
¶28 Finally, Solowicz cites Ainslie at Century Village 
Condominium Ass'n v. Levy, 626 So. 2d 229 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 
1993).  In Ainslie, included in the condominium declaration was 
a long term lease and a service contract between the developer 
and a management firm that gave the developer control of the 
condominium's recreational facilities.  Id. at 230.  The court 
held the lease and contract void because it vitiated the 
statutory protections in place for condominium owners.  Id. at 
232.  We agree with the court of appeals' analysis of Ainslie 
and conclude that it is distinguishable for two reasons.  First, 
in the case now before us, there is no lease or contract giving 
the Developer control of any condominium parcel's common 
elements.  Second, based on the Ainslie court's description, the 
development in Ainslie was a community of condominiums, not a 
planned community with an overarching development plan similar 
to Geneva National. 
¶29 Significantly, all of Solowicz's complaints relate to 
how the community as a whole, through its overarching plan, is 
being developed.  He has not complained that the Developer is 
meddling in individual condominium affairs.  Indeed, this is 
because the Developer does not have any power over individual 
condominium affairs and therefore, its power cannot be said to 
thwart rights accorded to individual condominium unit owners 
under ch. 703. 
¶30 In support of this point, we note that the Declarant 
timely ceded control of each residential condominium parcel to 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
20 
 
its unit owners as required under Wis. Stat. § 703.15.21  
Solowicz, Soltis and Havey, through the Condominium Master 
Association of which they are members, are in complete and 
absolute control of their condominium units and the common 
elements of their condominium parcels.  Further, the Declarant 
has not amended the Condominium Declaration without proper 
approval of the unit owners, see Wis. Stat. § 703.09(2), and the 
Declarant is restrained from unilaterally amending the Community 
Declaration if such amendment would materially alter a unit 
owner's rights to the use and enjoyment of the unit and its 
common elements.22   
¶31 Because Geneva National is a planned community with an 
overarching development scheme established to create a high end 
golf and leisure community, containing restaurants, golf clubs, 
tennis clubs, swimming clubs, single family homes, multiple 
family homes, wooded hiking trails, private streets with gated 
access to the community, and not simply a community of 
condominiums, it is not subject to ch. 703.  Furthermore, 
because the Community Declaration does not retain particularized 
                                                 
21 While the Declarant has the power to "approve" all 
amendments to condominium parcel documents under section 9.04 of 
the Community Declaration, the Declarant does not have the power 
to unilaterally amend condominium parcel documents, unless such 
amendment "is necessary" to cause the document to comply with 
"statute, ordinance, rule or regulation of any governmental or 
other regulatory authority, or with any judicial determination," 
as provided in section 11.01(b)(1) of the Community Declaration.  
22 See Community Declaration, section 11.01(a). 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
21 
 
day-to-day 
control 
over 
the 
condominium 
parcels 
or 
the 
individual condominiums, it does not contravene ch. 703. 
C.  Solowicz's Reasonableness Requirement 
¶32 Solowicz 
next 
contends 
that 
Wisconsin 
has 
a 
longstanding reasonableness requirement such that agreements 
with unreasonable terms, even if unambiguous, are unenforceable.  
The Developer contends that because the Community Declaration's 
terms are unambiguous, the court need not, and should not, 
determine the reasonableness of such terms.  Accordingly, the 
second question we must address is whether the terms of the 
Community Declaration, if unambiguous, must also be reasonable.  
But, before we answer this question we must first determine 
whether the Community Declaration's terms are unambiguous.  We 
consider each question in turn. 
1.  Unambiguous terms 
¶33 We note that neither Solowicz nor the Developer 
dispute that the terms of the Community Declaration must be 
unambiguous; however, they do dispute whether the terms are 
unambiguous. 
¶34 Ordinary contract rules apply to interpreting the 
terms of contracts such as the Community Declaration.  See Siler 
v. Read Inv. Co., 273 Wis. 255, 261, 77 N.W.2d 504 (1956).  
Wisconsin public policy favors freedom of contract.  AKG Real 
Estate, LLC v. Kosterman, 2006 WI 106, ¶34, 296 Wis. 2d 1, 717 
N.W.2d 835.  Freedom of contract is based on the idea that 
individuals should have the power to govern their own affairs 
without interference.  Id.  Our goal in interpreting contracts 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
22 
 
that were freely entered into "is to determine and give effect 
to the parties' intention."  Wis. Label Corp. v. Northbrook 
Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2000 WI 26, ¶23, 233 Wis. 2d 314, 607 
N.W.2d 276 (citing Gorton v. Hostak, Henzl & Bichler, S.C., 217 
Wis. 2d 493, 506, 577 N.W.2d 617 (1998)).  Wisconsin public 
policy also "favors the free and unrestricted use of property."  
Dodge v. Carauna, 127 Wis. 2d 62, 65, 377 N.W.2d 208 (Ct. App. 
1985) (citing Crowley v. Knapp, 94 Wis. 2d 421, 434, 288 N.W.2d 
815 (1980)). 
¶35 In order to accommodate the principle favoring free 
and unrestricted use of property and the principle favoring 
individuals' right to freely contract in ordering their own 
affairs, we generally have said that documents such as the 
Community Declaration must be expressed in unambiguous language 
to be enforceable contracts.  Pertzsch v. Upper Oconomowoc Lake 
Ass'n, 2001 WI App 232, ¶8, 248 Wis. 2d 219, 635 N.W.2d 829 
(citing Dodge, 127 Wis. 2d at 65); see also Crowley, 94 Wis. 2d 
at 435 (to be enforced, restrictions must be "expressed in 
clear, unambiguous, and peremptory terms").  We apply the 
standard set forth in Zinda, which includes ascertainment of the 
purpose of the contract, to determine whether the Community 
Declaration is expressed in unambiguous terms.  See Zinda, 191 
Wis. 2d at 167.  
¶36 Language "is ambiguous if it is susceptible to more 
than one reasonable interpretation."  Id. at 165–66.  However, if 
the intent of the contract can be certainly ascertained from the 
document itself, it will be enforced.  Id. at 166.  "By intent 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
23 
 
we do not mean the subjective intent of the drafter, but the 
scope and purpose of the [document] as manifest by the language 
used."  Id.  Furthermore, a document need not expressly prohibit 
the 
specific 
activity 
in 
question; 
when 
the 
purpose 
is 
ascertainable, the document should be construed to give effect 
to that purpose.  Bubolz, 159 Wis. 2d at 294.  Applying these 
principles of law to the Community Declaration, we determine 
that its terms are unambiguous in light of its purpose. 
¶37 As previously stated, Article IX of the Community 
Declaration reserved to the Declarant control over Geneva 
National until "conveyance by Declarant of eighty-five percent 
(85%)" of the maximum number of residential units.  Solowicz 
contends that the term conveyance is ambiguous because it was 
redefined two times,23 which demonstrates that the term is 
subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.  Solowicz 
further 
contends 
that 
because 
GN 
Partners, 
the 
original 
developer, conveyed certain undeveloped land in Geneva National 
to its lenders, who in turn transferred most of that land to the 
current Developer, the Declarant's control is terminated because 
it conveyed more than 85 percent of the units.  We are 
unpersuaded. 
¶38 We give effect to the purpose of the Community 
Declaration as manifest by the language used.  See Zinda, 191 
Wis. 2d 
at 
166. 
 
We 
agree 
with 
the 
circuit 
court's 
                                                 
23 In its brief, Solowicz contends that conveyance has been 
redefined three times.  However, the court finds no support for 
a third redefinition in Solowicz's citation to the record. 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
24 
 
characterization of the Community Declaration's purpose.  It is 
unambiguously an attempt to position control of Geneva National 
with the Declarant until a significant number of the residential 
units are sold to allow the Declarant to promote the orderly 
development of the property according to the master plan.  
Accepting Solowicz's contention would contravene this purpose by 
eliminating Declarant control when only 52 percent of the 
residential units have been conveyed to individual unit owners; 
conveying land to a third-party lender does not eliminate the 
need for Declarant control over the property.  The Declarant's 
two explanations of what constitutes a conveyance did not 
redefine the term, but instead served to reinforce the Community 
Declaration's purpose by concluding that a conveyance occurs 
when the Developer conveys a parcel to an owner or to a third-
party developer who has platted the parcel.24  Accordingly, the 
terms of the Community Declaration unambiguously maintain the 
Declarant's control until 85 percent of the residential units 
are conveyed to individual unit owners or to a third-party 
developer who has platted the parcels.  Conveyance of 85 percent 
of the residential units to individual unit owners or third-
                                                 
24 In 2006, the Developer explained that a "conveyance" 
requires a certificate of occupancy.  Then, in 2007, responding 
to an interrogatory from Solowicz, the Developer further 
explained that a conveyance requires the Developer to sell a 
parcel to an individual third-party purchaser or to a third-
party developer who has platted the parcel.  This is because the 
Developer will not know how many units it conveyed until the 
third-party developer plats the parcel. 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
25 
 
party developers who have platted the parcels has not yet 
occurred. 
2.  Reasonable enforcement 
¶39 Solowicz argues that even if the terms of the 
Community Declaration are unambiguous, the court must determine 
whether its terms are reasonable, and the Community Declaration 
unreasonably provides for unlimited and unending Developer 
control over the condominiums in Geneva National and is thereby 
unenforceable. 
¶40 The Community Declaration is a contract or agreement 
between the Developer and those who choose to purchase property 
within Geneva National, as we have discussed above.  However, 
the Community Declaration is also a type of servitude upon the 
land 
underlying Solowicz's condominiums because it places 
certain 
burdens 
on 
the 
ownership 
estates. 
 
Black's 
Law 
Dictionary 1492 (9th ed. 2009).   
¶41 Wisconsin 
courts 
have 
consistently 
held 
that 
a 
servitude that is unambiguous at the time of its creation will 
be strictly enforced.  Gojmerac v. Mahn, 2001 WI App 22, ¶31, 
250 Wis. 2d 1, 640 N.W.2d 178 (citing Hunter v. McDonald, 78 
Wis. 2d 338, 342-43, 254 N.W.2d 282 (1977)).  Courts do not 
determine the reasonableness of such unambiguous servitudes.  
See Pertzsch, 248 Wis. 2d 219, ¶10 n.3; Zinda, 191 Wis. 2d at 
171.  The reasons for this conclusion are many.  For example, we 
apply ordinary contract rules when interpreting the terms of a 
servitude.  See Siler, 273 Wis. at 261.  Parties also have the 
freedom to contract as they see fit, which is a well-established 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
26 
 
principle of law that Wisconsin courts have long recognized.  
Watts v. Watts, 137 Wis. 2d 506, 521, 405 N.W.2d 305 (1987).   
¶42 Here, the contract (the Community Declaration) was 
recorded, affording plaintiffs' notice of all its terms.  While 
we acknowledge that the freedom to contract may be tempered by 
basic common law principles, courts will not intervene and void 
an unambiguous contract absent the violation of a common law 
principle, which under the circumstances, requires that result.  
See, e.g., unconscionability, Wis. Auto Title Loans, Inc. v. 
Jones, 2006 WI 53, ¶29, 290 Wis. 2d 514, 714 N.W.2d 155; bad 
faith, M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Schlueter, 2002 WI App 313, 
¶15, 258 Wis. 2d 865, 655 N.W.2d 521; performance becomes 
impossible due to facts existing when the contract was made, 
which the non-performing party did not know and had no reason to 
know, Estate of Zellmer v. Sharlein, 1 Wis. 2d 46, 49, 82 N.W.2d 
891 (1957); terms that contravene public policy, Watts, 137 
Wis. 2d at 521; or terms that contravene a statute, Baierl v. 
McTaggart, 2001 WI 107, ¶12, 245 Wis. 2d 632, 629 N.W.2d 277.  
No such common law principle has been contravened by the 
Community Declaration.   
¶43 As noted, Solowicz contends that there is a long line 
of cases holding that restrictive covenants with unreasonable 
terms are unenforceable.  Solowicz misconstrues these cases.  
The Community Declaration is not simply a covenant that contains 
restrictions, 
but 
rather 
the 
overarching 
plan 
for 
the 
development of a 1,600 acre parcel.  However, we nevertheless 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
27 
 
review the principles established by the restrictive covenant 
cases that Solowicz cites. 
¶44 First, Solowicz cites to restraint of trade cases and 
wrongly attempts to import the reasonableness requirement in 
such cases to the contract at issue here.  Contracts that 
contain restraints of trade are distinguishable because they are 
disfavored at law and "must withstand close scrutiny as to their 
reasonableness."  Star Direct, Inc. v. Dal Pra, 2009 WI 76, ¶19, 
319 Wis. 2d 274, 767 N.W.2d 898.  In Huntley v. Stanchfield, 174 
Wis. 565, 183 N.W. 984 (1921), cited by Solowicz, Patnaude sold 
a hotel property with a restrictive covenant in the deed that 
prohibited the property from being used as a hotel for 15 years.  
In a previous action, the court enjoined the defendants from 
using the property as a hotel.  Id. at 566.  Huntley claimed the 
defendants violated the injunction and requested the court hold 
them in contempt.  Id.  The defendants argued that the covenant 
was void because it was an illegal restraint of trade.  Id. at 
569.  On this point, the court noted that the proper inquiry is 
whether: 
the restriction [is] a reasonable one under all the 
facts and circumstances of the transaction in the 
light of "the situation, business, and objects of the 
parties," and was the restriction "for a just and 
honest purpose, for the protection of the legitimate 
interests of the party in whose favor it is imposed, 
reasonable as between them and not specially injurious 
to the public[.]" 
Id. at 570 (quoting Cottington v. Swan, 128 Wis. 321, 323, 107 
N.W. 336 (1906) and cases there cited).  Solowicz is correct in 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
28 
 
pointing out that the Huntley court determined whether the 
restrictive 
covenant 
was 
reasonable; 
however, 
Huntley 
is 
distinguishable because the covenant contained a restraint of 
trade.  Id. at 568-69.  The Community Declaration does not 
restrain trade.  Accordingly, Huntley's reasonableness inquiry 
is inapplicable here.  Doherty v. Rice, which reiterates the 
inquiry in Huntley, is also a restraint of trade case.  Doherty, 
240 Wis. 389, 3 N.W.2d 734 (1942).  The deed in that case 
prohibited 
sale 
to 
and 
occupation 
by 
non-Caucasians, 
construction of residences that cost less than $600 and the use 
of outside toilets.  Id. at 392. 
¶45 Next, Solowicz argues that McKinnon v. Benedict, 38 
Wis. 2d 607, 157 N.W.2d 665 (1968), Le Febvre v. Osterndorf, 87 
Wis. 2d 525, 275 N.W.2d 154 (Ct. App. 1979), Dodge, 127 Wis. 2d 
62 and Weiland v. Paulin, 2002 WI App 311, 259 Wis. 2d 139, 655 
N.W.2d 204,25 hold that the terms of a contract must be 
reasonable to be enforceable.  We disagree.  None of these cases 
declines to enforce a contract on the grounds that its terms are 
unreasonable; rather, the cases demonstrate the court applying 
equitable principles.  Such equitable principles require the 
enforcement of a contract's terms be reasonable, not that the 
terms themselves be reasonable. 
¶46 In McKinnon, the defendants purchased land that was 
being used as a resort.  In need of financial assistance, 
                                                 
25 Weiland v. Paulin, 2002 WI App 311, 259 Wis. 2d 139, 655 
N.W.2d 204, overruled in part, Weiland v. Paulin, 2003 WI 27, 
260 Wis. 2d 277, 659 N.W.2d 875. 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
29 
 
defendants obtained a loan from plaintiff, the terms of which 
imposed a restraint on trade such that defendants could use the 
land for no purpose other than as a summer resort for a period 
of 25 years.  McKinnon, 38 Wis. 2d at 615.  Because of financial 
pressures, defendants added a trailer park and campsite.  
Plaintiff sought to enjoin defendant from operating the trailer 
park and campsite.  Id. at 614–15.  The court declined to use its 
equitable injunctive powers because the terms of the agreement 
were 
so 
unreasonably 
enforced 
that 
the 
contract 
was 
unconscionable.  See id. at 622. 
¶47 In Le Febvre, the condominium declaration stated that 
"no unit may be rented without the prior written consent of the 
Board of Directors."  Le Febvre, 87 Wis. 2d at 528.  Plaintiffs, 
members of the board of directors, sought an injunction against 
the continued rental of certain units by the developer, which 
the circuit court granted.  Id.  The court affirmed, holding 
that based upon all the facts and circumstances, "it [was] 
reasonable to enforce this restriction by injunction."  Id. at 
535. 
¶48 In Dodge, a deed restriction reserved the right for 
the subdivision developers to approve all buildings.  Dodge, 127 
Wis. 2d at 64.  The court held that the restriction's approval 
standard was arbitrary and concluded "that where, as here, a 
common grantor reserves the right to approve building on a 
deeded property by arbitrary standards, the exercise of that 
right—and not the restriction itself—" must be reasonable.  Id. 
at 66 (emphasis added). 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
30 
 
¶49 Weiland, 
citing 
McKinnon, 
reaffirmed 
that 
"the 
reasonableness requirement for a deed restriction is grounded in 
principles of equity."  Weiland, 259 Wis. 2d at 152.  Weiland 
unequivocally states that "if the intent of a restrictive 
covenant can be clearly ascertained from the covenant itself, 
the restrictions will be enforced."  Id. at 149 (citing Zinda, 
191 Wis. 2d at 166).  In Weiland, the subdivision developers 
sought injunctive relief against the lot owners, alleging that 
the owners erected a manufactured structure on their lot without 
preapproval in violation of the declarations governing the 
subdivision.  Id. at 143.  The court held that it was reasonable 
to enforce the deed restriction and affirmed the grant of 
injunctive relief.  Id. at 151. 
¶50 In the case now before us, both the court of appeals 
and the circuit court cited Pertzsch in support of the 
proposition that unambiguous contract terms need not be assessed 
for their reasonableness.  Specifically, they relied on this 
passage: 
Because we reject the argument that the covenants 
contain 
no 
specific 
standard 
of 
approval 
for 
boathouses, we also reject the Association's reliance 
on Dodge v. Carauna . . . .  [B]ecause the standards 
of approval in this case are not arbitrary, but are 
clear and specific, we are precluded from inquiring 
into 
the 
developer's 
intent 
or 
into 
any 
other 
evidentiary matters outside the four corners of the 
agreement. 
Pertzsch, 248 Wis. 2d 219, ¶10 n.3.   
¶51 Solowicz contends that Pertzsch should be overruled 
because it attempts to eliminate what Solowicz contends is 
No. 
2008AP10   
 
31 
 
Wisconsin's 
longstanding 
reasonableness 
requirement. 
 
We 
disagree.  Rather, Pertzsch is the latest in a long line of 
cases 
recognizing 
that 
the 
reasonableness 
analysis 
of 
unambiguous contracts is limited to determining whether the 
terms of the contract were reasonably enforced.26 
¶52 Here, we have concluded that the terms of the 
Community Declaration are unambiguous and therefore, its terms 
need not pass a test as to their reasonableness in order to be 
enforceable.  
III.  CONCLUSION 
¶53 Two issues are presented for our review:  (1) whether 
the Community Declaration, which affects the condominiums, is 
either subject to or contravenes Wis. Stat. ch. 703, the 
                                                 
26 Williston on Contracts supports this view.  It states: 
[Parties] should be permitted to enter into contracts 
that actually may be unreasonable or which may lead to 
hardship on one side.  It is only where it turns out 
that one side or the other is to be penalized by the 
enforcement 
of 
the 
terms 
of 
a 
contract 
so 
unconscionable that no decent, fair-minded person 
would view the ensuing result without being possessed 
of a profound sense of injustice, that equity will 
deny the use of its good offices in the enforcement of 
such unconscionability. 
Richard A. Lord, 8 Williston on Contracts § 18:1 (4th ed. 2009) 
(quoting Carlson v. Hamilton, 332 P.2d 989, 990–91 (Utah 1958)) 
(emphasis added). 
We decline to decide whether the Community Declaration was 
reasonably enforced.  The issue was not developed in the briefs 
to this court or at oral argument.  Further, like the circuit 
court, we conclude that no support has been shown for Solowicz's 
"vague 
claims" 
that 
the 
Developer 
acted 
inappropriately, 
illegally or in bad faith.   
No. 
2008AP10   
 
32 
 
Condominium Ownership Act; and (2) whether the Community 
Declaration's terms, if unambiguous, must also be reasonable to 
be enforceable.  We conclude that ch. 703 does not apply to the 
Community Declaration because the Community Declaration is not a 
document that creates condominiums.  Rather, the Community 
Declaration provides the development scheme for a 1,600 acre 
planned community.  Moreover, the Community Declaration does not 
contravene the protections of ch. 703 because the Developer does 
not exercise particularized day-to-day control over individual 
condominiums; rather, particularized day-to-day control of the 
terms of individual condominiums is vested in the unit owners.  
Furthermore, because the terms of the Community Declaration are 
unambiguous, those terms are not required to be reasonable, as 
well as unambiguous, in order to be enforceable.  Accordingly, 
we affirm the decision of the court of appeals that affirmed the 
circuit court's decision granting the Developer's motion for 
summary judgment and denying plaintiffs' motion for summary 
judgment. 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
affirmed. 
 
 
No.  08AP10.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶54 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   (concurring).  I join 
the mandate but write separately.  My rationale is more narrowly 
linked to the facts and posture of this case than the majority 
opinion may be read to suggest. 
¶55 This case involves a developing body of law known as 
"community 
association 
law," 
governing 
common-interest 
communities and their associations.  For a discussion of this 
body of law, see Restatement of the Law (Third) of Property: 
Servitudes, ch. 6 (2000). 
¶56 Absent a demonstrated conflict with the Condominium 
Act or a claim for equitable relief, the court should not 
undertake a far-reaching review of the Community Declaration in 
a 
declaratory 
judgment 
action 
to 
determine 
whether 
its 
provisions are per se unreasonable. 
¶57 Failure of the Community Declaration to follow the 
prescriptions of the Condominium Act does not render the 
Condominium Act inapplicable.  Here, each condominium is created 
and governed by a separate Condominium Declaration.  Each 
Condominium Declaration explicitly subjects the property to the 
rights and privileges set out by the Condominium Act.  The 
Community 
Declaration 
recognizes 
that 
separate 
Condominium 
Declarations and Condominium Associations are a part of the 
overall development and governance scheme at Geneva National. 
¶58 Thus it is apparent that the Community Declaration and 
Condominium Declarations function in tandem to govern the rights 
of condominium owners at Geneva National. 
No.  08AP10.ssa 
 
2 
 
¶59 Unlike Justice Prosser, who views today's decision as 
a blueprint for evading the requirements of the Condominium Act, 
see Justice Prosser's concurrence, ¶¶75-76, in my view today's 
decision rests on the fact that the plaintiffs have not shown 
specific 
interference 
by 
the 
developer 
within 
the 
self-
governance of individual condominiums.  To the extent that the 
plaintiffs protest potential interference where it has not yet 
has occurred, such claims are not ripe.   
¶60 The majority's discussion of planned communities hints 
at recognizing, without benefit of statutory authorization, a 
new legal form in large-scale planned communities.  Discussion 
or recognition of a novel legal form is unnecessary to resolve 
this case.  No feature of Geneva National, including its scale, 
its mix of property uses, or its specific amenities, frees the 
developer to violate the requirements of the Condominium Act 
with respect to the condominiums.  
¶61 The assertion that private planned communities (by 
whatever label) "function as semi-autonomous, private quasi-
towns," majority op., ¶19, should not provide a basis for 
today's decision.  Municipalities and other public governing 
bodies are accountable to citizens and property owners in many 
ways the developer at Geneva National is not.  The Community 
Declaration does not appear to create any fiduciary or trust 
responsibilities protecting property owners' interests.  Rather, 
the Community Association's duties and responsibilities are 
carried out "in the sole and absolute discretion of the Board of 
Directors." 
No.  08AP10.ssa 
 
3 
 
¶62 Control of the governance structure at Geneva National 
is important to the property owners for many reasons, but 
perhaps most fundamental is the ability to levy assessments 
against 
property 
owners. 
 
Courts 
should 
not 
treat 
the 
development here, or others like it, as simply akin to private 
municipalities. 
¶63 Yet in the present case, although abuses can be 
imagined, the plaintiffs have not demonstrated actions that 
contravene established law.  Here, the plaintiffs are not 
challenging any allegedly unjust enforcement of particular 
covenant provisions.  Rather, they argue that even provisions of 
the Community Declaration that have not been enforced against 
their interests should be struck down as per se unreasonable.   
¶64 The plaintiffs identify objectionable actions by the 
developer, but they do so to illustrate their generalized claim 
of unreasonable control.  The plaintiffs do not argue that any 
one action or assessment of dues or fees was by itself so 
unreasonable that it cannot be enforced.  A court may decline to 
enforce the terms of a deed restriction, covenant, or contract 
when such enforcement would be unjust.   
¶65 Although couched in terms of a declaratory judgment, 
the relief the plaintiffs seek is for the court to trigger the 
provision terminating the developer's powers and control.  As a 
practical matter, the plaintiffs ask the court to oust the 
developer from the governance of Geneva National.  Rather than 
invoking "reasonableness" as a shield to protect against unjust 
enforcement of the Community Declaration by the developer, the 
No.  08AP10.ssa 
 
4 
 
plaintiffs seek to use "reasonableness" as a sword——or at least 
as a sharp pen with which to rewrite the Community Declaration.  
The plaintiffs' allegations of unfair control in this case do 
not justify the potentially dramatic and laborious relief which 
they ask from the court. 
¶66 For the foregoing reasons I write separately. 
 
No.  2008AP10.awb 
 
1 
 
¶67 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   (concurring).  I agree with 
the majority that under the facts presented here the plaintiffs 
have failed to show that the developer's actions contravene 
established law.  I write separately, however, to urge the 
legislature to examine and consider enacting legislation that 
would balance some of the power and control issues presented by 
this case. 
¶68 In 2008, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC)1 approved 
amendments to the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act.  The 
amendments address a range of significant conflicts between unit 
owner 
associations 
and 
the 
individual 
members 
of 
those 
associations that had arisen in the years since 1994, when the 
ULC had last considered amendments to this uniform act.  The 
intensity of the conflicts between owners and associations had 
become a growing focus both in the media and at professional 
conferences.  There was a perception that individual unit owners 
were unduly disadvantaged in their dealing with those who 
control the decision-making apparatus. 
¶69 The ULC recognized that simply offering amendments 
might not prove to be a viable approach for many states like 
Wisconsin that had not yet adopted the Uniform Common Interest 
Ownership Act.  As a result, in 2008 it also promulgated a free-
standing Uniform Common Interest Owners Bill of Rights Act, 
which focuses on conflicts between associations and unit owners. 
                                                 
1 The Uniform Law Commission is also referred to as the 
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.  See 
Wis. Stat. § 13.55. 
No.  2008AP10.awb 
 
2 
 
¶70 Both uniform acts address aspects of association 
governance, with particular focus on the relationship between 
associations and individual members.  As common ownership 
increases, so do the complexities and controversies associated 
with that form of ownership.  Therefore, I suggest that the 
chief of the legislative reference bureau consider reporting 
this decision to the law revision committee to examine whether 
legislation should be enacted to address this evolving area of 
law.  See Wis. Stat. § 13.92(2)(j).  Accordingly, I respectfully 
concur.   
¶71 I am authorized to state that Justice DAVID T. PROSSER 
joins this concurrence.   
 
 
No.  2008AP10.dtp 
 
1 
 
¶72 DAVID T. PROSSER, J.   (concurring).  The principal 
question before the court is whether a developer/declarant may 
file a restrictive covenant on its land that will govern any 
future condominiums established on that land and also override 
any provisions in Wis. Stat. ch. 703——the Condominium Ownership 
Act——that conflict with the restrictive covenant. 
¶73 The court answers this question "yes."  It answers 
this question "yes" by excluding from the coverage of Chapter 
703 any filed instrument, including a restrictive covenant, that 
does not opt into Chapter 703 by complying with the detailed 
provisions of Wis. Stat. § 703.09. 
¶74 The court's analysis is located in ¶16.  It reads in 
part: 
 
We conclude that the Community Declaration [i.e., 
the developer/declarant's restrictive covenant] is not 
a condominium instrument subject to ch. 703 . . . .  
Condominium 
instruments 
include 
the 
condominium 
declaration, plat and plan. . . .  [T]o qualify as a 
condominium declaration, the document "shall contain" 
"a statement of the owner's intent to subject the 
property to the condominium declaration" under the 
Act, a name including the word "condominium" and a 
description of the condominium's common elements.  
Wis. Stat. § 703.09(1)(a), (b), (d).  No part of the 
Community Declaration evinces the Declarant's intent 
to subject all 1,600 acres to ch. 703. 
Majority op., ¶16 (footnote omitted).1 
¶75 The practical effect of this analysis is clear.  At 
least prospectively, developers will be permitted to develop 
condominiums without ever ceding control of those condominiums 
                                                 
1 The Walworth County Circuit Court adopted a similar 
analysis in its decision granting summary judgment. 
No.  2008AP10.dtp 
 
2 
 
to unit owners if they follow the simple expedient of filing 
unambiguous, carefully worded restrictive covenants before they 
file their condominium declarations. 
¶76 The court's analysis provides a blueprint for evading 
the limitations and protections contained in the Condominium 
Ownership Act.  The hole the court creates is so great that 
condominium law in Wisconsin may never be the same. 
¶77 Admittedly, the court of appeals reached the same 
result.  See Solowicz v. Forward Geneva Nat'l, 2009 WI App 9, 
316 Wis. 2d 211, 763 N.W.2d 828.  However, the court of appeals 
explained that: 
Geneva National is a private quasi-town, not a 
condominium. 
 
It 
is 
a 
master-planned 
community 
comprising 1600 acres with single- and multi-family 
homes, 
commercial 
and 
recreational 
property 
that 
caters to people who value its prized golf courses and 
other recreational options.  Because such a complex 
community requires an extended time to develop and 
market, we hold that master-planned communities are 
not subject to ch. 703. 
Id., ¶1 (emphasis added). 
¶78 The court backs away from the term "master-planned 
community" which is derived from the Uniform Common Interest 
Ownership Act (UCIOA), § 2-123 (1994), inasmuch as Wisconsin has 
not adopted UCIOA or anything like it.  Instead, it employs the 
term "planned community."  See, e.g. majority op., ¶¶3, 11, 14, 
16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 n.18, 28, 31, 53.  Significantly, 
however, the court does not define the term "planned community."  
This is understandable, as the term "planned community" appears 
No.  2008AP10.dtp 
 
3 
 
in the Wisconsin Statutes only once, and only in passing, in 
Wis. Stat. § 895.07(1)(b).2 
¶79 The court's use of the term "planned community" is 
designed to give the impression that its holding applies to 
mixed-use condominium projects that are visionary, complex, and 
big.  In fact, however, if a properly filed, carefully worded 
restrictive covenant can trump the provisions of Chapter 703, 
the size, number or type of the affected condominiums will not 
matter.  Only the controlling effect of the restrictive covenant 
will matter. 
¶80 Unfortunately, the court is not willing to confront 
the huge gap in Wisconsin law between condominiums under Chapter 
703 and units of local government.  Nor is it willing to 
acknowledge the full extent of the present developer's control 
of Geneva National as a result of that gap.  This developer may 
be visionary and honorable in every respect.  But the precedent 
created by the court's opinion opens the door to the kind of 
abuses by developers that have sparked controversy throughout 
the country.  See Unif. Common Interest Ownership Act, prefatory 
note to the 2008 amendments, 7(IB) U.L.A. 224 (Master Ed. 2009).  
I 
                                                 
2 Wisconsin Stat. § 895.07 is entitled "Claims against 
contractors 
and 
suppliers." 
 
Subsection 
(1) 
contains 
definitions.  Paragraph (b) reads: "'Association' means a 
homeowner's 
association, 
condominium 
association 
under 
s. 
703.02(1m), unit owner's association, or a nonprofit corporation 
created to own and operate portions of a planned community that 
may assess unit owners for the costs incurred in the performance 
of the association's obligations."  (Emphasis added.)  Wisconsin 
Stat. § 895.07 did not become part of Wisconsin law until April 
11, 2006.  See 2005 Wis. Act 201. 
No.  2008AP10.dtp 
 
4 
 
¶81 A detailed statement of the facts is necessary to 
understand this case. 
¶82 Geneva 
National 
describes 
itself 
as 
"Southern 
Wisconsin's most notable year-round golf resort community."  It 
is located on Lake Como, four miles west of downtown Lake 
Geneva, in Walworth County.  See www.gnbuilders.com. 
¶83 On July 25, 1989, the original developer, GN Partners, 
was granted a conditional use permit to develop its 1600 acres 
of property.  The following year, on May 21, 1990, GN Partners 
recorded a lengthy document with the Walworth County Register of 
Deeds.  This document was entitled "Declaration of Covenants, 
Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for the Geneva National 
Community."  This document, which the court refers to as the 
"Community Declaration," contained 12 articles covering more 
than 70 pages.   
¶84 The Community Declaration begins with six "WHEREAS" 
clauses that read in part: 
 
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner in fee simple of 
certain real property located in the Town of Geneva, 
Walworth County, Wisconsin . . . hereinafter referred 
to as the "Property;" 
 
WHEREAS, 
Declarant 
intends 
to 
develop 
the 
Property as a residential, recreational and commercial 
community . . .; 
 
WHEREAS, Declarant intends to construct at least 
two privately-owned golf courses, a privately-owned 
clubhouse, 
and 
other 
privately-owned 
recreational 
facilities on the Property. 
 
. . . .  
 
WHEREAS, Declarant intends to reserve the right, 
exercisable in its sole and absolute discretion, to 
No.  2008AP10.dtp 
 
5 
 
subject to the provisions of this Declaration at a 
later time . . . (i) all or any portion of the real 
property described . . . and (ii) such other real 
property as Declarant shall own from time to time. 
Id. (emphasis added). 
¶85 Article I of the Community Declaration is entitled 
"DEFINITIONS."  Among the 50 definitions in Article I are the 
following: 
 
(e) "Assessment" shall mean and refer to a share 
of the Community Expenses . . . and other charges from 
time 
to 
time 
assessed 
against 
a 
Unit 
and 
the 
respective 
Unit 
Owner 
by 
the 
Community 
Association . . . . 
 
. . . .  
 
(i) "Club" shall mean and refer to any one or 
more of those clubs as may be located on the Property 
and 
formed 
by 
or 
with 
the 
written 
consent 
of 
Declarant, including, but not limited to, the Club 
which is presently named Geneva National Golf Club and 
any other club on the Property.  Declarant presently 
owns all of the Clubs.  The Clubs are not owned or 
controlled 
by 
the 
Community 
Association, 
as 
hereinafter defined . . . . 
 
. . . .  
 
(q) "Community Expenses" shall mean and refer to 
all expenditures made or expenses incurred by or on 
behalf of the Community Association and the Trust, as 
hereinafter defined, together with all funds assessed 
for creating or maintaining reserves, as provided in 
this Declaration . . . . 
 
(r) "Condominium" shall mean and refer to any 
parcel of land within the Property which is hereafter 
subjected to the Condominium Ownership Act of the 
State of Wisconsin. 
 
. . . .  
 
(t) "Condominium Declaration" shall mean and 
refer to any instrument, and any amendments thereto, 
which is recorded in the Office of the Register of 
No.  2008AP10.dtp 
 
6 
 
Deeds of Walworth County . . . and which creates a 
Condominium for any part of the Property.  All 
covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements and 
other provisions of each such Condominium Declaration 
shall 
be . . . subject 
and 
subordinate 
to 
all 
covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements and 
other provisions of this Declaration, unless otherwise 
expressly provided in this Declaration or in any 
amendment to this Declaration. 
Id. (emphasis added). 
¶86 Article 
III 
is 
entitled 
"PROPERTY 
RIGHTS 
AND 
EASEMENTS."  Section 3.01 of the article reads in part: 
Each Unit Owner shall be entitled to the exclusive 
ownership and possession of the respective Unit and to 
the exercise of easement rights in accordance with 
this Declaration; provided, however, that Declarant 
hereby reserves the right, in its sole and absolute 
discretion, to grant, transfer and assign, in whole or 
in part, to any additional Person for use in common 
with others any or all of the easement rights reserved 
or granted by Declarant pursuant to this Declaration. 
Id. (emphasis added).3 
¶87 Article IV describes the "COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION." 
¶88 Article V describes the "GENEVA NATIONAL TRUST." 
¶89 Article IX is entitled "RIGHTS RESERVED TO DECLARANT."  
Section 9.01 reads in part as follows: 
 
Control by Declarant.  ANY OTHER LANGUAGE OR 
PROVISION IN THIS DECLARATION, IN THE ARTICLES OF 
INCORPORATION OF THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OR IN THE 
BYLAWS OF THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION TO THE CONTRARY 
NOTWITHSTANDING, prior to the conveyance by Declarant 
of eighty-five percent (85%) of the maximum number of 
Units which may be located on Single-Family Residence 
Grounds 
and 
Multiple-Family 
Residence 
Grounds . . . Declarant 
shall 
have 
the 
right, 
                                                 
3 Article I, section 1.01(jj) defines "Person" to mean and 
refer to not only "a natural person" but also a "corporation, 
partnership, association, trust, or other legal entity, or any 
combination thereof." 
No.  2008AP10.dtp 
 
7 
 
exercisable at any time . . . (i) to remove and to 
appoint a successor for any member or members of the 
Board of Directors of the Community Association, any 
officer or officers of the Community Association, and 
any management company employed by the Community 
Association if, at any time, Declarant determines, in 
Declarant's sole and absolute discretion, that any 
such 
member, 
officer 
or 
management 
company 
is 
prejudicial to the rights of Declarant . . . and (ii) 
to exercise the rights and discharge the duties and 
responsibilities of the [Geneva National] Trust and to 
select either the Community Association or any Club 
Owner to act under the conditions and in the manner 
provided in Section 5.01 of this Declaration. 
Id. (emphasis added). 
¶90 Section 9.02 gives the Declarant the right to execute 
all documents and undertake any actions affecting the Property 
which, in the Declarant's "sole and absolute discretion," are 
either desirable or necessary to exercise or enforce "any of the 
rights reserved or granted to Declarant."  Section 9.03 gives 
the Declarant "sole and exclusive right to use the names 'Geneva 
National' and 'Geneva National Golf Club.'"  Section 9.05 
reiterates Declarant's "exclusive right, in its sole and 
absolute discretion," to grant or assign easement rights to 
additional persons. 
¶91 Section 
9.04 
is 
entitled 
"Individual 
Condominium 
Associations."  This section reads in part: 
 
The Declarant reserves the right to review and, 
in the sole and absolute discretion of Declarant, 
approve the Declaration of Condominium, Articles of 
Incorporation, Declaration of Covenants, Conditions 
and Restrictions, Bylaws, and rules and regulations of 
any 
Condominium 
and 
any 
Condominium 
Association 
created for any portion of the Property . . . and to 
also so review and approve all amendments to all such 
documents in its sole and absolute discretion, and no 
such documents or amendments shall be effective unless 
and until approved in writing by Declarant. . . .  No 
No.  2008AP10.dtp 
 
8 
 
articles of incorporation shall be filed with the 
Secretary of State . . . no Condominium Declaration 
and 
no declaration of covenants, conditions and 
restrictions shall be effective or filed . . . nor 
shall 
any 
amendments 
to 
any 
such 
documents 
be 
effective, unless and until the Declarant approves 
said documents in writing, which approval shall be at 
the sole and absolute discretion of Declarant.  There 
shall be no other community association and no 
homeowner's association formed within the Property 
unless and until Declarant approves in writing any 
such formation. 
Id. (emphasis added). 
¶92 Article XI of the instrument is entitled "AMENDMENTS."  
Section 11.01(a) provides in part: 
 
During any period in which Declarant retains the 
right 
to 
remove 
and 
appoint 
successors 
to 
any 
directors . . . Declarant may amend this Declaration 
by an instrument recorded [with] the Office of the 
Register of Deeds . . . without the approval of any 
Unit Owner or mortgagee of any part of the Property 
[with a qualification, as determined by Declarant in 
its sole and absolute discretion]. 
Id. (emphasis added). 
¶93 Section 11.01(b) provides in part that "Each Unit 
Owner, by acceptance of a deed or other conveyance to a Unit, 
agrees to be bound by all amendments permitted by this Article 
XI." 
¶94 Article XII is entitled "GENERAL PROVISIONS."  The 
article reiterates that the covenants, restrictions, conditions, 
reservations, easements, charges and liens contained in the 
Declaration "run with and bind the land" and are enforceable by, 
among others, "the Declarant."  Article XII, § 12.01.  The 
article gives the Community Association the power to impose 
"reasonable monthly fines" against Unit Owners and to "suspend a 
No.  2008AP10.dtp 
 
9 
 
Unit Owner's right to vote on matters brought before the 
Members."  Article XII, § 12.09. 
¶95 Section 12.12 concludes: 
 
Discrepancies 
Between 
This 
Declaration 
and 
Documents Subsequently Recorded.  In the event of any 
discrepancy, inconsistency, conflict or contradiction 
between the provisions of this Declaration and the 
provisions 
of 
any 
other 
document 
affecting 
the 
Property recorded subsequent to the recording of this 
Declaration . . . unless it is otherwise expressly 
provided by or with the consent of Declarant in any 
amendment to this Declaration or in any such other 
document affecting the Property which is recorded 
subsequent to this Declaration, the provisions of this 
Declaration shall control and shall remain in full 
force and effect. 
Id. (emphasis added). 
¶96 Shortly after it recorded the Community Declaration, 
GN Partners recorded multiple Condominium Declarations with the 
Walworth County Register of Deeds.  These documents were 
entitled "Declaration of Condominium Ownership and of Easements, 
Restrictions, Conditions and Covenants for Geneva National 
Condominium No. ____." 
¶97 The first page of each Condominium Declaration states: 
Declarant intends by this Declaration to subject the 
Real Estate Parcel, together with all buildings, 
structures, improvements and other permanent fixtures 
of whatsoever kind which are now, or at any time 
hereafter, 
located 
thereon, 
and 
all 
rights 
and 
privileges belonging or pertaining thereto, to the 
provisions of the Condominium Ownership Act of the 
State of Wisconsin, as amended from time to time. 
Id. (emphasis added). 
¶98 The Condominium Declarations required Declarant to 
form the Condominium Master Association, Inc.  The Condominium 
No.  2008AP10.dtp 
 
10 
 
Master Association, Inc. is the kind of association described in 
Wis. Stat. § 703.155. 
¶99 The Condominium Master Association, Inc. is different 
from (1) the Community Association outlined in Article IV of the 
Community Declaration [Restrictive Covenant], and also (2) any 
association of unit owners, see Wis. Stat. § 703.15, for any of 
the multiple condominiums within the Geneva National Property. 
¶100 The powers of the Community Association are extensive.  
They 
are 
spelled 
out in Section 4.02 of the Community 
Declaration [Restrictive Covenant].  They include the power to 
provide for a general fund; levy assessments; enforce any lien 
for nonpayment of assessments; maintain private roadways and 
other portions of the Property; contract with any person, 
including 
Declarant, for security services, water supply, 
sanitary sewer service, operation, maintenance, and repair of 
private roadways, cable television, and television antennae; 
buy, sell, lease, pledge, mortgage and hold title to real and 
personal property; obtain secured and unsecured loans; encumber 
the assets of the Community Association to pay Community 
Expenses; hire agents, employees, management services, and 
professional services; and "take any other lawful action 
necessary in the sole and absolute discretion of the Board of 
Directors" to exercise all powers and discharge all duties and 
responsibilities and liabilities of the Community Association.  
The composition and voting power of the five members of the 
Board of Directors is set out in Article IV of the Community 
Declaration, as amended. 
No.  2008AP10.dtp 
 
11 
 
¶101 The powers and duties of the Condominium Master 
Association are more limited than the powers and duties of the 
Community Association because they are administrative only and 
include such routine tasks as repair and maintenance of multi-
family buildings, landscaping, snow removal, street sweeping, 
and providing insurance and common area utilities.  The 
Condominium Master Association, consisting of representatives 
from all distinct condominium parcels on the Property, may levy 
assessments to support its limited powers and duties. 
¶102 The other entity that governs the Property is the 
Geneva National Trust, described in Article V of the Community 
Declaration.  The Geneva National Trust is administered by three 
trustees. 
 Its purpose is "to provide for the orderly 
development of the Property, to preserve and maintain the 
natural environment within the Property," see Section 5.01, and 
"to adopt and enforce Architectural Standards as provided in 
Article VIII."  Section 5.03(a).  However, the Trust also is 
empowered "to take any other action appropriate or necessary in 
the sole and absolute judgment and discretion of the Trustees to 
fulfill the Trust purposes."  Section 5.03(d). 
¶103 Section 5.06, entitled "Financial Affairs of the 
Trust," provides in part that "[a]ll costs and expenses incurred 
by the Trust shall be paid by the Community Association."  "All 
costs and expenses of the Trust submitted by the Trust to the 
Community Association shall be immediately paid, and the Trust 
shall have no obligation to seek or obtain the prior consent or 
the subsequent approval" of the Community Association.  Id.  In 
No.  2008AP10.dtp 
 
12 
 
short, the Community Association is required to assess Unit 
owners for the expenses of the Trust. 
II 
¶104 The interests of the original developer/declarant, GN 
Partners, were acquired by Forward Geneva National in 2001.  
Forward Geneva National, in turn, was acquired by Keefe & 
Associates, Inc. in 2005.  There is no dispute that Forward 
Geneva National is the successor-in-title to the original 
developer/declarant's interest in the Property.  There also is 
no dispute that whoever controls Forward Geneva National is 
entitled to exercise all rights that GN Partners was entitled to 
exercise. 
¶105 The present developer, Keefe & Associates, Inc., has 
enormous direct power.  It has the power to amend the 
Restrictive Covenant without the approval of others.  This 
includes the power to amend the 85 percent provision that is 
slated to diminish the developer's power at some point in the 
future.  It has the power to undertake any action affecting the 
Property that the developer deems desirable or necessary to 
exercise or enforce any right reserved or granted to the 
developer.  It has the power to remove elected directors of the 
Community Association, officers of the Community Association, 
and management companies hired by the Community Association, and 
to appoint successors.  It also has a never-ending power to name 
one of the five directors of the Community Association.  In 
addition, it has the power to exercise the rights and discharge 
the duties of the Geneva National Trust.  And it has the power 
No.  2008AP10.dtp 
 
13 
 
to approve any condominium declaration, any bylaws, and any 
rules 
and 
regulations 
of 
any 
condominium 
or 
condominium 
association within the Property.  Considering this latter power, 
it is difficult to understand how the court of appeals could 
conclude that the "Developer has no control over the Condominium 
Master Association."  Solowicz, 316 Wis. 2d 211, ¶4, and how 
that conclusion is confidently reasserted in the court's 
opinion.  Majority op., ¶5. 
¶106 The developer also has control over the Geneva 
National Trust.  According to the petitioners, "The majority of 
the Trustees are principals of the Developer: The unelected 
Trustees are Michael Keefe, Robert Keefe, and their business 
partner Paul Votto."  The Trust is independent of the Community 
Association.  As a result, the Trust may dictate to the 
Community Association assessments upon Unit owners. 
¶107 Ostensibly, the developer has only four of the 19 
votes that are cast by Directors of the Community Association.  
In 
2006, 
however, 
the 
vice 
president 
of 
the 
Community 
Association was Scott Lowell, a builder with close ties to Keefe 
& Associates.  In December 2005 Keefe & Associates purchased the 
interest of Harlow, LLC in Forward Geneva National.  At a Geneva 
National Community Town Hall meeting in February 2006, Community 
Association Treasurer Rob Keefe explained that "Harlow, under 
the leadership of Scott Lowell, will remain active within Geneva 
National as a builder and property owner."  Thus, an officer of 
one of the former owners of Forward Geneva National remains 
No.  2008AP10.dtp 
 
14 
 
active, in part, by serving as Vice President of the Community 
Association, representing commercial interests. 
¶108 The Secretary of the Community Association, according 
to a 2006 document in the record, was Kevin Paluch, representing 
the Paloma Golf Group, Inc. [e.g., a Club].  As noted in the 
Community 
Declaration, 
all 
Clubs 
were 
owned 
by 
the 
developer/declarant at the time the Declaration was filed.  In 
2001 the developer altered the Declaration to reduce the 
assessments on Clubs by shifting all assessments related to the 
Swim and Racquet Club to residential unit owners.  This 
amendment was signed on behalf of the developer by Kevin Paluch, 
Vice President of Paloma Development Group, Inc.  Presumably, 
what the developer giveth in terms of assessment relief to 
Clubs, the developer may taketh away. 
¶109 To sum up, Robert Keefe, the President of Keefe & 
Associates, the developer, is also one of three trustees of the 
Geneva 
National 
Trust 
and 
Treasurer 
of 
the 
Community 
Association.  He has the power to remove any other director of 
the Community Association, as well as its executive director——
who in 2006 also happened to be the executive director of the 
Condominium Master Association.  In reality, the developer 
controls both the Geneva National Trust and the Community 
Association. 
III 
¶110 One purpose of the 1990 Community Declaration was to 
establish "an overall development scheme for the 1,600[-]acre 
planned community."  Majority op., ¶16.  An equally important 
No.  2008AP10.dtp 
 
15 
 
purpose was to assure the developer's control of the "planned 
community," in every important respect, for as long as the 
developer wished to retain power.  The intent of the Community 
Declaration in this latter regard is absolutely clear.  There 
are no "checks and balances" in the document.  The dispersal of 
power is largely illusory.  As noted above, the Community 
Declaration trumps the Condominium Ownership Act whenever the 
two conflict. 
¶111 Petitioners now challenge the degree and duration of 
the developer's control of the residential condominiums at 
Geneva National.  In reviewing this challenge, the court appears 
untroubled that the Geneva National "community of condominiums" 
is not subject to the Condominium Ownership Act except when the 
developer wants it to be.  If developers are able to secure all 
the benefits of the condominium form of ownership without 
submitting themselves to the statutory limitations of the 
Condominium Ownership Act, they will render the statutory 
protections of unit owners a legal mirage. 
¶112 As I see it, petitioners have presented a convincing 
picture of one-sided control by the developer.  However, they 
have not constructed a compelling argument that the Community 
Declaration that affords this control is unlawful.  They have 
not pointed to specific Wisconsin statutes that invalidate the 
Community Declaration nor have they persuaded any justice that 
"public policy" permits and requires this court to rewrite a 70-
page document to give them a better deal.  The truth is, this 
court is not in a position to concoct a remedy for every alleged 
No.  2008AP10.dtp 
 
16 
 
wrong.  In my view, the petitioners have made a strong case for 
the Wisconsin legislature to adopt the Uniform Common Interest 
Ownership Act to provide additional protections to unit owners. 
¶113 The individual provisions in the Community Declaration 
related to developer control are not ambiguous.  An argument 
might be made that provisions of the Condominium Declarations 
are ambiguous in context because the declarant's stated intent 
in the Condominium Declarations "to subject the Real Estate 
Parcel . . . to the provisions of the Condominium Ownership Act 
of the State of Wisconsin" is decisively overcome by multiple 
provisions in the Community Declaration.  However, petitioners 
do not make an extended argument with respect to contextual 
ambiguity4 and how it would affect the outcome, and they do not 
present evidence that they and other unit owners were duped when 
they acquired their units. 
¶114 Legislative redress appears to be the most promising 
means of effecting greater balance among the numerous interests 
in this "planned community."  The 2008 amendments to the Uniform 
Common Interest Ownership Act seek to enhance the protections of 
unit owners.  In my view, greater balance among the interests 
would make Geneva National a more appealing venue for present 
and future residential unit owners. 
¶115 For the foregoing reasons, I reluctantly concur. 
 
                                                 
4 See Folkman v. Quamme, 2003 WI 116, 264 Wis. 2d 617, 665 
N.W.2d 857. 
No.  2008AP10.dtp 
 
1