Title: Wis. Dolls, LLC v. Town of Dell Prairie

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2012 WI 76 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2010AP2900   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Wisconsin Dolls, LLC, 
          Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner 
     v. 
Town of Dell Prairie and Town of Dell Prairie 
Town Board, 
          Defendants-Respondents   
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS   
Reported at 337 Wis. 2d 431, 806 N.W.2d 449 
(Ct. App. 2011 – Published) 
PDC No: 2011 WI App 141 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 5, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
March 7, 2012   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Adams   
 
JUDGE: 
Charles A. Pollex   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs 
by Matthew Fleming, Margery Tibbetts-Wakefield and Lawrence 
Bechler, Murphy Desmond, S.C. Madison, and oral argument by 
Lawrence Bechler. 
 
For the defendants-respondents, there was a brief filed by 
Mark Hazelbaker and Michael R. O’Callaghan, Hazelbaker & 
Associates, S.C., Madison, and oral argument by Mark Hazelbaker.  
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Michael J. Lawton and 
Kenneth Axe, Boardman & Clark, LLP, Madison, for the Tavern 
League of Wisconsin, Inc.    
 
 
2012 WI 76
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2010AP2900   
(L.C. No. 
2010CV61) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Wisconsin Dolls, LLC, 
 
          Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Town of Dell Prairie and Town of Dell Prairie 
Town Board, 
 
          Defendants-Respondents. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 5, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Reversed and 
cause remanded.   
 
¶1 
DAVID T. PROSSER, J.    This is a review of a 
published decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit 
court's dismissal of Wisconsin Dolls, LLC's (Wisconsin Dolls) 
certiorari action. 
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
2 
 
¶2 
The Town of Dell Prairie (Town), in renewing the Class 
"B" and "Class B" alcohol beverages licenses1 (hereinafter 
"license") of Wisconsin Dolls, reduced the described "premises" 
of the license from the entire eight acres of Wisconsin Dolls' 
resort property to only the "Main Bar/Entertainment Building" of 
the resort.  The Adams County Circuit Court, Charles A. Pollex, 
Judge, dismissed Wisconsin Dolls' certiorari action challenging 
the reduction.  The court of appeals affirmed on different 
grounds, holding that the original license was void because it 
failed to particularly describe the premises to which it 
applied.  Wis. Dolls, LLC v. Town of Dell Prairie, 2011 WI App 
141, 337 Wis. 2d 431, 806 N.W.2d 449.   
¶3 
We conclude the following.  First, the original 
license granted to Wisconsin Dolls was not void due to an 
insufficient description of the premises.  Wisconsin Dolls asked 
for a license that would cover the entire eight acres of the 
resort, and the original license explicitly covered the entire 
eight acres of the resort.  Second, the Town of Dell Prairie 
exceeded its authority when it modified the description of the 
premises in renewing Wisconsin Dolls' alcohol beverages license.  
Towns may attach conditions to an alcohol beverages license, 
including limitations to the described premises, when the 
license is initially granted.  If a town later wishes to modify 
the premises described in the license, especially if the 
                                                 
1 The Class "B" license and "Class B" license were granted 
on a "combination form" "Class B license."  We refer to this 
license in the singular throughout the opinion.  
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
3 
 
modification disadvantages the licensee, it must pass a valid 
regulation or ordinance under Wis. Stat. § 125.10(1),2 follow the 
procedures outlined in Wis. Stat. § 125.12, or negotiate the 
consent of the licensee.  A town is not permitted to 
unilaterally reduce the description of the premises when it 
renews an alcohol beverages license.  The Town here did not 
proceed on a correct theory of law, and thus its modification of 
the license cannot be sustained. 
¶4 
We reverse the decision of the court of appeals and 
remand the case to the circuit court to order the Town to 
restore the "all 8 acres of the resort" premises description to 
Wisconsin Dolls' former and current alcohol beverages licenses. 
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
¶5 
Wisconsin Dolls is a resort that is licensed as an 
Adult-Oriented 
Establishment 
under 
Town 
of 
Dell 
Prairie 
Ordinance No. 4-2004.  The resort is located in the Town of Dell 
Prairie at 4179 State Highway 13, outside of Wisconsin Dells.3   
¶6 
On December 31, 2004, Wisconsin Dolls filed its 
original application for an alcohol beverages license with the 
Town of Dell Prairie.  It sought both a Class "B" fermented malt 
beverages license and a "Class B" intoxicating liquor license.  
                                                 
2 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2009-10 version unless otherwise indicated. 
3 The description of the premises in the Adult-Oriented 
Establishment license granted to Wisconsin Dolls by the Town has 
ranged from the address of 4179 State Road 13, Wisconsin Dells, 
WI 53965 to "all 8 acres of the resort" at that address to "all 
buildings on the entire 8 acres" at that address.   
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
4 
 
On its application form, Wisconsin Dolls listed the premises 
description as "ALL 8 ACRES OF RESORT."  The license was granted 
in January 2005. 
¶7 
On subsequent renewal applications, Wisconsin Dolls 
listed the following premises descriptions:   
2005-06: Bar, cooler, Lg room in office all 8 acres of 
R[esort]. 
2006-07: Bar-cooler, Lg Room in office——all 8 acres of 
r[esort]. 
2007-08: BAR, COOLER, Lg ROOM IN OFFICE AND all 8 
Acres of resort. 
2008-09: 
All 
buildings 
and 
property 
comprising 
approximately 8 acres. 
2009-10: All buildings & property comprising approx. 8 
acres. 
¶8 
The Town granted a Class "B" Fermented Malt Beverages 
and "Class B" Intoxicating Liquors license for each year.  The 
combined license included the following premises descriptions: 
Jan. 24, 2005-June 30, 2005: Wisconsin Dolls Resort 
4179 State Highway 13 All 8 acres of the resort. 
2005-064: Wisconsin Dolls Resort 4179 State Highway 13 
Wisc. Dells, WI All 8 acres of the resort. 
2006-07: Wisconsin Dolls Resort 4179 State Highway 13 
Wisc. Dells WI All 8 acres of the resort 
2007-08: [description unavailable].5 
                                                 
4 The license is valid from July 1 of the initial year until 
June 30 of the following year.  See Wis. Stat. § 125.04(11)(b)2. 
5 We do not find in the record a copy of the license from 
2007-08.  However, there is no dispute that a license was 
granted that year. 
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
5 
 
2008-09: Wisconsin Dolls, LLC 4179 State Rd 13 Wis 
Dells, WI 53965 
2009-10: Wisconsin Dolls, LLC 4179 State Road 13, 
Wisconsin Dells, WI 53965 (Main Bar/Entertainment 
Building) 
¶9 
The previous owner of the property, James D. Canham, 
operated Arrowhead Resort/The Hill Bar & Grill.  Canham had an 
alcohol license that described the premises as the "Bar and 
basement."  He surrendered that license upon selling the 
property. 
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
¶10 On June 9 and June 13, 2009, the Town board held 
special meetings to discuss a number of subjects.  One item 
addressed was "corrective liquor license applications."  The 
Wisconsin Dolls alcohol license was not the only license 
discussed at the meetings but it was the first and it generated 
the most discussion.  After the Town discussed the address 
listed on the alcohol license renewal application form and a 
question about alcohol wholesalers, the following exchange 
occurred: 
The Chairman: Okay.  You read the article that 
Attorney Wood –- and I also talked to the town's [sic] 
association and Attorney Carol, and there are –- our 
situation in here was the -– that all buildings and 
traffic comprising of the approximately 80 [sic] acres 
and what –- she said that if you have all that 
property open, that any –- anyone under 21 through 
there –- you don't store.  You don't serve alcohol on 
all eight acres and all of the units over there.  If 
they need to store stuff in an additional building, 
that should be specified as part of the application; 
but otherwise, the bar building is the main building.   
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
6 
 
 
Now, when the original liquor license was gotten 
by Halbach, who had that motel for years -- and he's 
the one that sold it to the prior owners that -- they 
had before this and he had the bar.   
 
He started out with a beer bar because he was 
serving meals and everything in the main part of the 
hotel complex.  And so when Halbach got this and they 
put it into the Dolls, apparently they -- they put all 
buildings in and all eight acres on the application.  
Well, the application was never shown to the board 
members, and there was never an approval to change it 
to all of this part.  I was the one that started 
digging, and I want to see what these applications 
look like. 
 
It's not that we weren't -- we are not taking the 
license away from that portion of the -- the building.  
It's -- the fact is that all eight acres -- it  
doesn't make sense.  Okay.   
 
Now, at the beginning of the year when they filed 
for the adult entertainment aspect, they asked to be 
allowed to have a juice bar there.  Well, the purpose 
of a juice bar is to get the 18-year-olds to 21-year-
olds to come in; but they can't drink alcohol.  Now, 
if you have got a license running on the whole 
premises, there's (inaudible) that creates a -- a 
legal problem. 
Unidentified Male Speaker: (Inaudible) have the 
juice bar if they are going to serve alcohol on all 
eight acres.  Anybody under 21 can't be there without 
a parent -- 
 
The Chairman: Right.  If they -- 
Unidentified 
Male 
Speaker: 
-- 
or 
on 
that 
property. 
The Chairman: Right.  So anyway, that is why -- as far 
as the main building and -- if they need storage in 
one of the other buildings of -- I don't have a 
problem with that at all.  We actually approved it 
subject to -- but we are not -- we are not approving 
that it covers the entire eight acres.  So that is -- 
that's where we sit on that issue.  And we had the 
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
7 
 
letter from -- here we are really not taking away a 
license for his main business right there so-- 
 
And to be serving and storing and having the 
records in all of the buildings and on the eight acres 
is too big,  . . .  
¶11 An unidentified speaker noted that the licenses had 
been granted in the past.  A response suggested that previously 
the board did not closely review the applications.  The chairman 
stated "there has not been many problems that I am aware of, of 
serving minors around the rest of the property over there."  The 
chairman also stated that only the main building ought to be 
licensed, because minors might visit the property, and possibly 
a storage building could be licensed: "that, I can agree with, 
but not the eight acres."  The chairman further explained:  
[O]ur position as board members is for the health, the 
safety and welfare of the people in the township.  
Okay.   
When you have an open situation like this -- that 
you are going to have people from 19 to 21 or even 
other kids could come on the property, that's not in 
their best -- the best interest of these people -- to 
be in an establishment such as that -- in the liquor -
- and the liquor being available -- to get served 
alcohol and that -- now, that's my -- my concern right 
there.     
¶12 The minutes from the June 9, 2009, Town board meeting 
state, in pertinent part:  
Wisconsin Dolls, LLC: The address for Wisconsin 
Dolls, LLC on the application is different than the 
address 
listed 
on 
the 
Wisconsin 
Department 
of 
Financial Institutions website.  This will need to be 
amended and also the description of the premises is 
very vague and needs to be more specific to meet the 
requirements of Chapter 125 in regards to covering 8 
acres. 
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
8 
 
¶13 There is no transcript of the June 13 meeting in the 
record.  The minutes of the June 13 meeting stated in pertinent 
part:  
Discussion occurred in regard to the premises 
description 
on 
the 
application 
from 
Wisconsin 
Dolls. . . .  Chairman Schulz made a motion to issue 
the license to Wisconsin Dolls if the application is 
amended to restricting the premises to the main bar 
building and storage area . . .  A roll call vote was 
made with all three board members voting yes. 
¶14 On February 16, 2010, Wisconsin Dolls filed a summons 
and complaint in Adams County Circuit Court seeking certiorari 
review of the Town's decision to modify and reduce the 
description 
of 
the 
premises 
in 
Wisconsin 
Dolls' 
alcohol 
beverages license when the license was renewed.  The Town moved 
to dismiss the action.   
¶15 On October 19, 2010, the circuit court held a hearing 
on the motion.  The court made the following findings: 
[The Town] lacked any evidence of any of the causes 
required for refusal to renew a license under sec. 
xxx125.12(3) [and] (2)(ag) of the statutes. 
 
. . . .  
[The Town] gave no prior written notice to the 
Plaintiff as to why the Board would take action to 
deny renewal of the license, and there was no 
opportunity for the Plaintiff to be heard, and no 
written explanation why the action was taken. 
 
. . . .  
[T]he action taken by the Town of Dell Prairie did not 
and does not constitute a refusal to renew the license 
of the Plaintiff.  In issuing the licenses in 
question, the Board is directed under the provisions 
of sec. 125.26(3) and sec. 125.51(3)(d) of the 
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
9 
 
statutes to particularly describe the premises for 
which it is issued.  And the Court finds and concludes 
that that is what was done by the Town Board in this 
case.   
¶16 On November 2, 2010, the circuit court dismissed the 
certiorari proceeding with prejudice.   
¶17 The court of appeals affirmed in a published decision.  
Wis. Dolls, LLC, 337 Wis. 2d 431.  The court of appeals framed 
the issue as "whether the issuance of a license for 2008-2009 
for all eight acres of Wisconsin Dolls' property violated any 
provisions in Wis. Stat. ch. 125."  Id., ¶11.  The court of 
appeals focused on the statutory requirement that a license 
"particularly describe the premises."  Id., ¶¶15-20.  The court 
of appeals determined that the license did not particularly 
describe the premises and was thus void.  Id., ¶¶25-27.  The 
court of appeals withheld judgment on whether the license issued 
for 2009-2010 was valid, not having been applied for on the form 
for an original application.  Id., ¶28.  The court of appeals 
concluded that procedural due process was not violated in this 
case because the original license was void.  Id., ¶¶29-31.  
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
¶18 This case is here on certiorari review of a decision 
of the Town board of the Town of Dell Prairie, Adams County.  On 
certiorari review, our "review is limited to: (1) whether the 
municipality kept within its jurisdiction; (2) whether it 
proceeded on a correct theory of law; (3) whether its action was 
arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable and represented its will 
and not its judgment; and (4) whether the evidence was such that 
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
10 
 
it 
might 
reasonably 
make 
the 
order 
or 
determination 
in 
question."  Ottman v. Town of Primrose, 2011 WI 18, ¶35, 332 
Wis. 2d 3, 796 N.W.2d 411.   
¶19 To resolve this case, we focus on the second prong of 
certiorari review, namely, whether the municipality proceeded on 
a correct theory of law.  This requires us to interpret Chapter 
125 of the Wisconsin Statutes.  Statutory interpretation 
presents a question of law that we review de novo.  Zwiefelhofer 
v. Town of Cooks Valley, 2012 WI 7, ¶20, 338 Wis. 2d 488, 809 
N.W.2d 362. 
 
IV. DISCUSSION 
¶20 We address two issues.  First, was the alcohol 
beverages license issued to Wisconsin Dolls void because it did 
not "particularly describe the premises" to which it applied?  
Second, did the Town have statutory authority to unilaterally 
reduce the premises description in the Wisconsin Dolls alcohol 
beverages license when it renewed the license? 
¶21 Since 1933, the regulation of "intoxicating liquors" 
has been reserved to the states.  U.S. Const. Amend. XXI;  
Eichenseer v. Madison-Dane Cnty. Tavern League, 2008 WI 38, ¶31, 
308 Wis. 2d 684, 748 N.W.2d 154. 
¶22 In Wisconsin, the legislature has regulated sale of 
"alcohol beverages" in Chapter 125 of the statutes.  Wis. Stat. 
ch. 125.  Wisconsin has enacted a comprehensive system of 
regulation covering "the 3-tier system for alcohol beverages 
production, distribution, and sale."  Wis. Stat. § 125.01.  The 
Wisconsin Department of Revenue has been given substantial 
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
11 
 
rulemaking authority over alcohol beverages.  Wis. Stat. 
§§ 125.02(5), 125.03.  The state also has delegated authority to 
local municipalities to issue licenses for the sale of alcohol 
beverages and to regulate otherwise the sale of alcohol 
beverages.  E.g., Wis. Stat. §§ 125.10; 125.26; 125.51. 
¶23 Several provisions of Chapter 125 are relevant to this 
case.  The legislature has posited that "[n]o person may sell, 
manufacture, rectify, brew or engage in any other activity for 
which this chapter provides a license, permit, or other type of 
authorization without holding the appropriate license, permit or 
authorization 
issued 
under 
this 
chapter." 
 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 125.04(1).  The procedures for issuing licenses are outlined 
in Chapter 125.  "No license or permit may be issued to any 
person except as provided in this chapter.  Any license or 
permit issued in violation of this chapter is void."  Wis. Stat. 
§ 125.04(2). 
¶24 This 
case 
involves 
a 
Class 
"B" 
fermented 
malt 
beverages license under Wis. Stat. § 125.26 and "Class B" 
intoxicating liquor 
license under Wis. Stat. § 125.51(3), 
combined.  Wisconsin Stat. § 125.26(1) provides that "[e]very 
municipal governing body may issue Class 'B' licenses for the 
sale of fermented malt beverages from premises within the 
municipality."  Wisconsin Stat. § 125.51(1)(a) provides that 
"[e]very municipal governing body may grant and issue 'Class A' 
and 'Class B' licenses for retail sales of intoxicating liquor."   
¶25 The procedure to apply for an alcohol beverages 
license is spelled out in the statutes.  The Department of 
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
12 
 
Revenue is charged with preparing an application form for the 
licenses described in Chapter 125.  Wis. Stat. § 125.04(3).  The 
form for an original application for an alcohol beverages 
license is more extensive than the form for a renewal.  Wis. 
Stat. § 125.04(3)(a)-(b).  See generally Williams v. City of 
Lake Geneva, 2002 WI App 95, 253 Wis. 2d 618, 643 N.W.2d 864 
(discussing the relationship between the process of granting a 
license and the process of renewing a license).   
¶26 Applications for an alcohol beverages license are 
filed with the municipal clerk of the municipality "of the 
intended place of sale."  Wis. Stat. § 125.04(3)(e).   
¶27 Before a license is issued, the applicant must pay the 
license fee, Wis. Stat. § 125.04(8), set by the municipality 
(within 
certain 
statutory 
parameters), 
e.g., 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§§ 125.26(4), 125.51(3)(e).   
¶28 Once a license has been granted, the license must be 
framed, Wis. Stat. § 125.04(10)(a), and "conspicuously displayed 
for public inspection at all times in the room or place where 
the activity subject to . . . licensure is carried on."  Wis. 
Stat. § 125.04(10)(b). 
A. Were Wisconsin Dolls' Alcohol Beverages Licenses 
from 2005-2009 Valid? 
¶29 The first issue is whether the annual licenses that 
the Town issued to Wisconsin Dolls for the years of 2005-2009 
failed to comply with the premises description requirement of 
Chapter 125 and thus were void under Wis. Stat. § 125.04(2).  
The Town argues that the premises description in each license 
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
13 
 
did not comply with Wis. Stat. § 125.26(3) and Wis. Stat. 
§ 125.51(3)(d).  These statutes require that Class "B" and 
"Class B" licenses "particularly describe the premises for which 
issued."  Wis. Stat. §§ 125.26(3), 125.51(3)(d).   
¶30 In determining what "premises" means in Chapter 125, 
we are expected to look at the context in which the term is used 
throughout the chapter.  Klemm v. Am. Transmission Co., LLC, 
2011 WI 37, ¶18, 333 Wis. 2d 580, 798 N.W.2d 223; Village of 
Lannon v. Wood-Land Contractors, Inc., 2003 WI 150, ¶13, 267 
Wis. 2d 158, 672 N.W.2d 275. 
¶31 Wisconsin Stat. § 125.02(14m) defines "premises" to 
mean "the area described in a license or permit."  The only 
limitation on "premises" in this definition is the "area" 
limitation that appears in the license or permit.   
¶32 Wisconsin Stat. § 125.04(3)(a) directs the Department 
of Revenue to "prepare an application form for each kind of 
[alcohol beverages] license" and require information from the 
applicant of "3. The premises where alcohol beverages will be 
sold or stored or both."  (Emphasis added.) 
¶33 The forms for a Class "B" and a "Class B" license make 
the required request for a "Premises" description.  The form 
instructs: 
"Describe 
building 
or 
buildings 
where 
alcohol 
beverages are to be sold or stored.  The applicant must include 
all rooms including living quarters, if used, for the sales, 
service, and/or storage of alcohol beverages and records.  
(Alcohol beverages may be sold and stored only on the premises 
described.)." 
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
14 
 
¶34 The answers provided on the form by an applicant may 
be used by the licensing authority to comply with Wis. Stat. 
§§ 125.26(3) and 125.51(3)(d) which require the licenses to 
"particularly describe the premises for which issued." 
¶35 In every instance, the applications from Wisconsin 
Dolls listed buildings and all "8 acres" of the resort.  This 
signified that the applicant wanted all eight acres to be 
designated as "the premises" where alcohol beverages could be 
sold or stored or both.  The Town did not have to approve such a 
broad a description of the premises, but it did. 
¶36 In 
voiding 
the 
licenses, 
the 
court 
of 
appeals 
effectively ruled that the Town could not have granted licenses 
with a premises description that broad, even if it wished to do 
so.  The court of appeals said: 
"[P]articularly describe the premises" means that the 
license must contain sufficient detail to identify the 
specific areas where the alcohol beverages will be 
sold or stored or both.  We conclude that merely 
identifying the total amount of acreage of the 
licensee's property does not fulfill this definition.  
It does not identify the specific area or areas in the 
total acreage where the licensed activity will occur. 
Wis. Dolls, LLC, 337 Wis. 2d 431, ¶20.   
 
¶37 We are not persuaded.  Wisconsin Stat. §§ 125.272 and 
125.51(6) require most sales with Class "B" or "Class B" 
licenses to be face-to-face sales to consumers.  A broad 
premises 
description 
permits 
face-to-face 
retail 
sales 
throughout the entire eight acres of the resort and also permits 
consumption of the alcohol beverages throughout the entire eight 
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
15 
 
acres of the resort.  No municipality is required to permit this 
activity in such a broad area, but we do not see in Chapter 125 
any statute in which the legislature has prohibited it. 
¶38 Licensed premises, as described elsewhere in Chapter 
125, appear to refer to more than the point of sale.  E.g., Wis. 
Stat. § 125.07(3)(a).  The licensed premises, with respect to a 
"Class B" intoxicating liquor license under Wis. Stat. § 125.51, 
may be co-extensive with the premises where consumption may 
occur. 
 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 125.51(3)(a); 
see 
also 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 125.51(3)(am) and (b).  Thus, the premises to be listed on a 
"Class B" license are not necessarily confined to the dimensions 
of a bar room or storage room. 
¶39 Here the Town chose to license the entire eight acres 
of the resort as the premises for the sale (and also the 
consumption) of fermented malt beverages and intoxicating 
liquor.  The Town made that choice.   
¶40 Clearly, the legislature has never required that 
alcohol beverages be sold or consumed only in buildings.  The 
license posting requirement in Wis. Stat. § 125.04(10)(b) 
applies to gigantic indoor and outdoor venues as well as small  
corner taverns.  We suspect that most people would not be able 
to identify where the alcohol beverages license is posted at 
Lambeau Field or Camp Randall Stadium.  Thus, the posting 
requirement cannot be used to limit the area of the described 
premises.  A municipality has authority to limit the area of the 
premises when it grants a license. 
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
16 
 
¶41 In sum, the original license granted to Wisconsin 
Dolls was not void due to an insufficient description of the 
premises.  
B. Did the Town Have the Authority to Modify the 
Premises Description in an Alcohol Beverages License 
upon Renewal Without the Consent of the Licensee? 
¶42 We now turn to the specific question of the authority 
of a town6 to unilaterally modify the premises description in an 
alcohol 
beverages 
license 
upon 
renewal 
of 
that 
license.  
Wisconsin Dolls makes due process arguments concerning the 
modification of an alcohol beverages license under Chapter 125——
claiming that when the Town modified the license by reducing the 
described premises from the entire property to only the main bar 
area, the Town stripped Wisconsin Dolls of property rights 
without due process of law.  The Town makes several arguments in 
response.   
¶43 We address the question solely as a matter of 
statutory interpretation.  The procedures concerning alcohol 
beverages licenses are provided in Chapter 125.  Chapter 125 
does not provide towns, except as discussed below, the authority 
to modify licenses upon renewal.  Thus, the Town had no 
authority to modify the license in the way it did.  Because the 
                                                 
6 We refer in this opinion to the authority of towns under 
Chapter 125.  Chapter 125 does not distinguish among cities, 
villages, and towns with respect to renewal of alcohol beverages 
licenses.  We do not need to determine whether other statutes 
might change the result for cities or villages. 
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
17 
 
Town was without authority, we do not consider due process 
arguments.  
¶44 At the outset of our analysis, we note that "[T]owns 
have no home rule powers but only those powers specifically 
delegated to them by the legislature or necessarily implied 
therefrom."  Danielson v. City of Sun Prairie, 2000 WI App 227, 
¶13, 
239 
Wis. 2d 178, 
619 
N.W.2d 108 
(citing 
Pugnier 
v. 
Ramharter, 275 Wis. 70, 73, 81 N.W.2d 38 (1957)).  Therefore, in 
the context of the comprehensive scheme provided by Chapter 125, 
we look for a statute providing support for the Town's right to 
modify an alcohol beverages license upon renewal.  The parties 
do not direct us to such a statute.  Without such a statute, the 
Town does not have authority to modify the premises description 
in an alcohol beverages license upon renewal. 
¶45 Chapter 125 of the statutes provides provisions 
regarding license application, Wis. Stat. § 125.04(3), license 
issuance, e.g., Wis. Stat. §§ 125.26, 125.51, and license 
nonrenewal, suspension, or revocation, Wis. Stat. § 125.12.  The 
parties do not direct us to a provision in Chapter 125 that 
provides towns with the authority to unilaterally modify the 
description of the licensed premises upon renewal.  We know that 
a licensee may not unilaterally enlarge the size of its 
premises.  Alberti v. City of Whitewater, 109 Wis. 2d 592, 601, 
327 N.W.2d 150 (Ct. App. 1982) (holding that a licensee cannot 
unilaterally expand an existing licensed premises to include 
additional previously undescribed, unlicensed area).  We do not 
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
18 
 
see that a town may unilaterally reduce the area of the premises 
described in the alcohol beverages license.   
¶46 Under Chapter 125, towns may grant licenses.  E.g., 
Wis. Stat. § 125.02(9).  They must renew those licenses, if the 
proper application is made and the fees are paid, unless they 
revoke, suspend, or non-renew the licenses, following the 
procedures outlined in Wis. Stat. § 125.12. 
¶47 Wisconsin Stat. § 125.12 provides remedies for a town 
(or its residents) when a licensee violates Chapter 125 or a 
pertinent local ordinance.  Any resident of a town may complain 
regarding a licensee that has violated Chapter 125 or a 
regulation 
adopted 
by 
that 
town. 
 
See 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 125.12(2)(ag).  Such a complaint commences an action that can 
result in license revocation.  However, § 125.12 provides 
certain 
procedural 
protections 
for 
licensees 
or 
license 
applicants when a town chooses to revoke or non-renew, or 
refuses to issue a license.  These protections include an 
adversarial hearing.  Wis. Stat. § 125.12(2)(b). 
¶48 In addition, towns have broad authority to "prescribe 
additional regulations for the sale of alcohol beverages, not in 
conflict with" Chapter 125 of the statutes.  Wis. Stat. 
§ 125.10(1).  The legislature also provided that "[r]egulations 
providing forfeitures or license suspension or revocation must 
be adopted by ordinance."  Id.  The Town suggested here that the 
fluid process of alcohol regulation in this state, and this 
section of the statutes in particular, allowed it to modify 
licenses upon renewal.  We disagree.  While towns can regulate 
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
19 
 
alcohol beverages as provided by the statute, § 125.10(1) does 
not give towns the authority to unilaterally modify the 
described premises in an individual license upon renewal of that 
license. 
¶49 In short, a town must either pass a regulation or an 
ordinance under Wis. Stat. § 125.10 or it must find grounds for 
revocation or nonrenewal under Wis. Stat. § 125.12.7   
¶50 If a town were able to establish violations by a 
licensee under Wis. Stat. § 125.12(2)(ag), the town might 
accommodate the licensee by allowing the licensee to apply for a 
transfer of the license to a new (reduced) premises description 
under Wis. Stat. § 125.04(12)(a), rather than face the penalty 
of non-renewal.  The modification of the premises description 
might facilitate compliance with Chapter 125. 
¶51 It is not unrealistic that a town might negotiate with 
a licensee to address public concerns8 about the premises 
description and obtain consent to a modification.  As the court 
of appeals recognized in Alberti, a change in the premises 
description in an alcohol beverages license "is analogous to a 
request for a transfer from one premises to another."  Alberti, 
                                                 
7 Municipalities do not have unlimited power to regulate via 
Wis. Stat. § 125.10.  Ordinances must meet certain requirements.  
Town of Hobart v. Collier, 3 Wis. 2d 182, 87 N.W.2d 868 (1958).  
In this case, the Town might face other obstacles in attempting 
to regulate a business such as Wisconsin Dolls under Wis. Stat. 
§ 125.10.  See Lounge Mgmt. v. Town of Trenton, 219 Wis. 2d 13, 
580 N.W.2d 156 (1998). 
8 Cf. Eichenseer v. Madison-Dane Cnty. Tavern League, 2008 
WI 38, ¶9, 308 Wis. 2d 684, 748 N.W.2d 154. 
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
20 
 
109 Wis. 2d at 595.  Towns might use the statutory authority in 
the license transfer statute, Wis. Stat. § 125.12(a), to come to 
a mutually-agreeable resolution.  Licensees certainly could have 
motivation to negotiate with towns.  In this case the Town 
alleged that the license did not conform to Chapter 125 in its 
premises description and also alleged that the Town was aware 
that a juice bar had been built by Wisconsin Dolls that served 
patrons under the legal drinking age.9  If the latter allegation 
were true, the licensee might be in violation of Chapter 125.  
In the event that a violation of Chapter 125 existed, a 
municipality and a licensee would want to address that problem 
lest revocation or suspension proceedings be commenced by a 
resident of the municipality or the Department of Revenue.  See 
Wis. Stat. § 125.12(2)(ag) & (4)(ag).   
¶52 When there is no finding of misconduct or violation, 
however, there is no authority to unilaterally alter the 
premises description of a specific license.  Here the Town board 
chairman stated explicitly, at least with respect to serving 
alcohol to underage individuals, "there has not been many 
                                                 
9 The Town did not specify how the information was obtained 
regarding where alcohol was served.  At oral argument, the Town 
suggested that the fact-finding process occurred based on 
personal knowledge of the location, i.e., driving past the 
resort.  While this fact-finding process underscores the benefit 
of an adversarial hearing, it is not the basis for our decision.   
We note that information regarding a juice bar was not new.  
A handwritten note on Wisconsin Dolls' initial Adult-Oriented 
Establishment license application dated December 31, 2004, 
states "*Aspects of business include . . . 18 [year old] Juice 
Bar without Alcohol." 
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
21 
 
problems that I am aware of, of serving minors around the rest 
of the property over there."  This was confirmed by the Town in 
oral argument.  The circuit court found that no grounds existed 
for nonrenewal under Wis. Stat. § 125.12(3) and (2)(ag).  We see 
no reason why our interpretation of the statutes is at odds with 
a statewide system complemented by local regulation. 
¶53 The Town asserts that its action in this case was not 
arbitrary.  We make no suggestion that the Town was acting in 
bad faith.  We have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the 
statement made by counsel for the Town in oral argument: "The 
Town board, I can tell you, doesn't give a wit about [Wisconsin 
Dolls] being a strip club."  Rather, counsel argued, the Town is 
interested only in overseeing any expansion of Wisconsin Dolls' 
service area for alcohol beverages.  But the issue before us is 
not the Town's good faith.  The issue is the Town's authority——
and any town's authority——to unilaterally alter the premises 
description of an alcohol beverages license without cause and 
without compliance with established statutory procedure. 
¶54 We are not unsympathetic to the Town's concern that 
Wisconsin Dolls, under this interpretation, could construct many 
new buildings on its premises and serve alcohol in each of them 
without filing an application for a "new" license under Chapter 
125.  While that may be true, the town should have considered 
that possibility when granting an initial license.  The Town 
granted a license that provided Wisconsin Dolls authority to 
sell alcohol beverages and consume alcohol beverages on the 
entire resort property.  Thus, if Wisconsin Dolls were to sell 
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
22 
 
or allow consumption at more than the bar area, that would be 
within the license granted; it would not be an area expansion 
unilaterally undertaken by the licensee.  The Town may have 
other means to govern a proliferation of buildings.10 
¶55 If this decision causes towns to carefully consider 
what conditions they attach to licenses when those licenses are 
issued, that result appears to mesh with the purpose of Chapter 
125 and the system of local regulation that the chapter permits.  
See Wis. Stat. § 125.04(2). 
¶56 In short, towns and potential licensees are well-
advised to work out these issues at the time of original license 
application, rather than to deal with them later. 
V. CONCLUSION 
¶57 We reverse the decision of the court of appeals.  
First, the original licenses granted to Wisconsin Dolls were not 
void due to an insufficient description of the premises.  
Wisconsin Dolls asked for licenses that would cover the entire 
eight acres of the resort, and the original license explicitly 
covered the entire eight acres of the resort.  Second, the Town 
of Dell Prairie exceeded its authority when it modified the 
description of the premises in renewing Wisconsin Dolls' alcohol 
beverages license.  Towns may attach conditions to an alcohol 
beverages 
license, 
including limitations to the described 
                                                 
10 This opinion refers only to the effect of expansion on 
the alcohol beverages license.  Other ordinances might affect 
the extent to which Wisconsin Dolls can expand its facilities or 
maintain its operational licenses.  
No. 
  2010AP2900 
 
23 
 
premises, when the license is initially granted.  If a town 
later wishes to modify the premises described in the license, 
especially a modification that disadvantages the licensee, it 
must pass a valid regulation or ordinance under Wis. Stat. 
§ 125.10(1), follow the procedures outlined in Wis. Stat. 
§ 125.12, or negotiate the consent of the licensee.  A town is 
not permitted to unilaterally reduce the description of the 
premises when it renews an alcohol beverages license.  The Town 
here did not proceed on a correct theory of law, and thus its 
modification of the license cannot be sustained. 
¶58 We reverse the decision of the court of appeals and 
remand the case to the circuit court to order the Town to 
restore the "all 8 acres of the resort" premises description to 
Wisconsin Dolls' former and current alcohol beverages licenses. 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
reversed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for 
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.