COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

June 23, 2021

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 

and RULE 809.62. 

Appeal No. 2020AP35 Cir. Ct. No. 2018CV332

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT II

TINA TRAHAN,

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-CROSS-RESPONDENT,

STONE MANOR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.,

 PLAINTIFF-CO-APPELLANT-CROSS-RESPONDENT,

 V.

ALBERT J. HINTON, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ALBERT J. HINTON &

GERALDINE L. HINTON JOINT REVOCABLE TRUST DATED AUGUST 24,

1998 AND GERALDINE HINTON, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ALBERT J.

HINTON & GERALDINE L. HINTON JOINT REVOCABLE TRUST DATED 

AUGUST 24, 1998,

 DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-CROSS-APPELLANTS.

APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court 

for Walworth County: DANIEL STEVEN JOHNSON, Judge. Affirmed. 
No. 2020AP35

2

Before Neubauer, C.J., Reilly, P.J., and Davis, J.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent 

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3). 

¶1 PER CURIAM. This action involves the interpretation of a ten-foot 

lake easement (the easement) granted to Albert Hinton in 1973. Tina Trahan, a 

current owner of the servient estate, and Stone Manor Condominium Association, 

Inc. argue that, as a matter of law, a pier is not allowed under the easement.

1

 

Stone Manor challenges the trial court’s finding on partial summary judgment that 

the easement implicitly allowed for some sort of pier. The court held that a 

material question of fact existed as to whether the Hintons’ pier complied with the 

terms of the easement. Following a four-day trial, the jury found that the Hintons’

pier was reasonable and that the Hintons had not committed a trespass or a 

nuisance in the use of the easement. Stone Manor appeals from the final judgment 

in favor of the Hintons. The Hintons cross-appeal the court’s denial of their claim 

preclusion and prescriptive easement arguments.

 

1

 Trahan owns six of the seven condominium units in a converted historic house located 

along the shores of Lake Geneva. Stone Manor owns the common elements surrounding the 

condominium. We will refer to the Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Respondents as “Stone Manor.” 

Albert and Geraldine Hinton own property near Stone Manor, and prior to the creation of the 

easement, the Hintons were co-owners with others in Geraldine Hinton’s family—the Kurlands. 

We will refer to the Hintons and the Kurlands collectively and individually as “the Hintons.” 
No. 2020AP35

3

¶2 We affirm. Prior to April 9, 1994, Wisconsin recognized the ability 

of a riparian landowner2to convey riparian rights by easement.3 Konneker v. 

Romano, 2010 WI 65, ¶27, 326 Wis. 2d 268, 785 N.W.2d 432. A landowner’s 

riparian rights include the right to construct a pier. Id. As will be shown below, 

the Hintons’ pre-1994 easement, while being silent as to whether a pier was 

allowed, did convey riparian rights to the Hintons, including the right (subject to 

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulations and express terms of the 

 

2

 “‘Riparian’ means ‘[o]f, relating to, or located on the bank of a river or stream (or 

occasionally another body of water, such as a lake).’” Konneker v. Romano, 2010 WI 65, ¶5 n.5, 

326 Wis. 2d 268, 785 N.W.2d 432 (alternation in original) (citing Riparian, BLACK’S LAW 

DICTIONARY (7th ed. 1999)). “In the legal sense, a landowner whose property borders on a body 

of water has ‘riparian rights,’ meaning ‘the right to make reasonable use of the water.’” Id.

3

 In Stoesser v. Shore Drive Partnership, 172 Wis. 2d 660, 494 N.W.2d 204 (1993), 

superseded by statute, WIS. STAT. § 30.133 (2019-20), as recognized in ABKA Partnership v. 

DNR, 2002 WI 106, ¶60, 255 Wis. 2d 486, 648 N.W.2d 854, our supreme court explained:

 Riparian rights are well defined in Wisconsin law. They 

include: the right to reasonable use of the waters for domestic, 

agricultural and recreational purposes; the right to use the 

shoreline and have access to the waters; the right to any lands 

formed by accretion or reliction; the right to have water flow to 

the land without artificial obstruction; the limited right to intrude 

upon the lake bed to construct devices for protection from 

erosion; and the right now conditioned by statute, to construct a 

pier or similar structures in aid of navigation.

Stoesser, 172 Wis. 2d at 666 n.2 (citing Cassidy v. DNR, 132 Wis. 2d 153, 159, 390 N.W.2d 81 

(Ct. App. 1986)). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless 

otherwise noted.

“Beginning on April 9, 1994, ... no owner of riparian land that abuts a navigable water 

may grant by an easement or by a similar conveyance any riparian right in the land to another 

person, except for the right to cross the land in order to have access to the navigable water.” WIS.

STAT. § 30.133(1). Additionally, the “right to cross the land may not include the right to place 

any structure ... in the navigable water.” Id. Section 30.133 was the legislative response to 

Stoesser, which held that riparian rights can be conveyed by easement to nonriparian landowners. 

Konneker, 326 Wis. 2d 268, ¶36; ABKA P’ship, 255 Wis. 2d 486, ¶60; but see WIS. STAT.

§ 30.131.
No. 2020AP35

4

easement) to place a pier in the lake bed. As the Hintons had riparian rights to 

place a pier, the only question was one of fact for the jury: was the Hintons’ pier 

reasonable given the express terms of the easement? The evidence presented at 

trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.

Facts

¶3 On September 10, 1973, the Hintons conveyed by warranty deed a 

parcel of land that they owned, adjacent to Stone Manor, to Stone Manor’s

predecessors in interest. It is further undisputed that within that conveyance the 

Hintons reserved to themselves and their heirs and assigns a ten-foot easement 

over the property:

 Excepting and reserving from the above described real 

estate to the Grantors and each of them and each of his or 

her heirs and assigns a permanent easement upon the South 

ten (10) feet of said above described real estate or, if said 

South ten (10) feet is not passable then such 10 foot 

easement may be used at any point in the above described 

real estate, such easement to be used for passage of 

vehicles and persons on and across said real estate to the 

shore of Lake Geneva, said easement to be appurtenant to 

the Grantors’ real estate located on the East side of Willow 

Street across from the above described parcel being sold; 

Grantor Hinton, his heirs and assigns, also retains the right 

to maintain either an existing boat buoy in the lake in front 

of the above described easement or a boat lift station on the 

shore of Lake Geneva at lake end of easement and to store 

a small row boat on the shore of Lake Geneva at the lake 

end of said easement; Grantors and each of them, their 

heirs and assigns, shall also have the right to park not more 

than two vehicles at the same time on said easement; 

provided that use of said easement or rights shall not 

interfere with Grantee’s driveway or parking lot on the land 

above described.

 The above easement herein reserved with all of its 

provisions shall run with the land and shall inure to the 

benefit and use of each of the above named Grantors as the 

owners of contiguous land lying on the East side of Willow 

Street, their heirs and assigns. 
No. 2020AP35

5

(Emphasis added.)

¶4 Stone Manor brought suit against the Hintons in 2018. Stone Manor 

sought judgment declaring the easement unenforceable, an injunction, and 

judgment on its nuisance and trespass claims. The Hintons counterclaimed for a 

declaration of an express easement, or in the alternative, a prescriptive easement. 

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial

court granted partial summary judgment to the Hintons, denying the motion to the 

extent that it sought dismissal of Stone Manor’s claims, but declaring that the 

“[e]asement provides the Hintons with the right to place and maintain a pier to get 

from the shore of Geneva Lake to their boat lift station.”4 The court determined 

that there was an issue of fact as to whether the current pier was reasonable under 

the easement. After a trial, the jury found in favor of the Hintons on all issues, and 

the court entered judgment. 

Standard of Review

¶5 The question presented in this appeal requires us to review a

decision on summary judgment and the interpretation of a deed of easement. 

Whether the trial court properly granted partial summary judgment is a question of

law that this court reviews de novo, and we apply the same methodology used by

 

4

 The trial court held a second summary judgment hearing on two additional issues: the 

prescriptive easement counterclaim and the Hintons’ claim preclusion argument. The Hintons 

filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of claim preclusion, arguing that the 

predecessor in interest to Stone Manor filed a lawsuit in 1982 seeking an injunction requiring the 

Hintons to remove the pier and restraining them from maintaining a pier on the property. The 

Hintons asserted the 1973 easement as an affirmative defense and argued that the Hintons “had 

maintained a ‘walkway’ to his boat lift off the Easement for ten years prior to the 1982 Action.” 

The court dismissed the 1982 action with prejudice for failure of the plaintiffs to appear at trial. 

There was a delay in alerting the court to the claim preclusion issue, as the Hintons allegedly 

forgot about the 1982 action. The court denied summary judgment on both issues. 
No. 2020AP35

6

the trial court. Konneker, 326 Wis. 2d 268, ¶22; see also WIS. STAT. § 802.08. 

“Summary judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine issue of

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Konneker, 326 Wis. 2d 268, ¶22 (citation omitted).

¶6 Whether a deed is ambiguous is a question of law that we review

independently, and if ambiguous, then the intent behind the language presents a

question of fact. Id., ¶23. The construction of an unambiguous deed is a question

of law. Id.

Discussion

¶7 “An easement grants a right to use another’s land.” Garza v. 

American Transmission Co., 2017 WI 35, ¶23, 374 Wis. 2d 555, 893 N.W.2d 1 

(citing Konneker, 326 Wis. 2d 268, ¶25). The “dominant estate” (the Hintons)

enjoys those privileges granted pursuant to the easement, and the “servient estate”

(Stone Manor) permits the exercise of those privileges. See id. “While the

servient estate may not unreasonably interfere with the dominant estate’s right to

use the easement, ‘[t]he use of the easement must be in accordance with and

confined to the terms and purposes of the grant.’” Konneker, 326 Wis. 2d 268,

¶25 (alteration in original) (quoting Stoesser v. Shore Drive P’ship, 172 Wis. 2d

660, 668, 494 N.W.2d 204 (1993)); Hunter v. McDonald, 78 Wis. 2d 338, 343,

254 N.W.2d 282 (1977).

¶8 As the Hintons’ easement was created by deed, we look to that

instrument in construing the relative rights of the landowners. Konneker, 326

Wis. 2d 268, ¶26. “‘Deeds are construed as are other instruments’; accordingly,

‘the purpose of the court is to ascertain the intention of the parties.’” Id. (quoting

Rikkers v. Ryan, 76 Wis. 2d 185, 188, 251 N.W.2d 25 (1977)). The information
No. 2020AP35

7

contained in the four corners of the deed serve as the primary source to discern the

parties’ intent. Id. “If the language is unambiguous, it would be improper to

resort to extrinsic evidence to ascertain the parties’ intent.” Id. Conversely, if the

deed is ambiguous, meaning that it is susceptible to more than one reasonable

interpretation, then we may look to extrinsic evidence to ascertain the parties’

intent. Id. 

¶9 In Konneker, the issue was whether a “lakefront easement, created 

by a deed that is otherwise silent as to the easement’s use and purpose, grants 

riparian rights, including the right to construct and maintain a pier.” Id., ¶¶2, 27. 

As our supreme court stated in Konneker, “one of” “the riparian rights,” that could

be conveyed to nonriparian owners prior to 1994, was the right to place a pier. Id.,

¶27. However, the court made clear that the conveyance of riparian rights does

not “inherently” allow for construction of a pier—rather, the question is whether

the conveyance of riparian rights includes the right to construct and maintain a

pier, which depends on the terms and purposes of the easement. Id., ¶27 nn.9, 11. 

¶10 In Konneker, the court found the deed ambiguous, as the easement 

language was “otherwise silent as to the easement’s use and purpose”: “In 

particular, it is not clear from the deed whether the parties intended the easement 

holder to have riparian rights, including the right to construct and maintain a pier. 

Accordingly, the deed is ambiguous, and the court must resort to extrinsic 

evidence to ascertain the parties’ intent.” Id., ¶¶5-6, 30. The court concluded that 

summary judgment was not a proper remedy to either the dominant or servient 

estate, as genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the parties creating 

the deed intended the easement holder to have riparian rights, including the ability 

to have a pier. Id., ¶¶32-33.
No. 2020AP35

8

¶11 In the case before us, unlike in Konneker, the language of the 

easement is clear that the Hintons were granted riparian rights, and that the 

purpose was to use the lake shore for access to the lake and for boating. We, like

the trial court, conclude that the Hintons’ deed is unambiguous; thus, we look to

the four corners of the deed. The deed clearly grants the Hintons some riparian

rights, as the deed grants the Hintons access to Geneva Lake (“passage of vehicles 

and persons on and across said real estate to the shore of Lake Geneva”) as well as

the “right to maintain either an existing boat buoy in the lake in front of the above

described easement or a boat lift station” in the lake bed. Thus, as the trial court

found, the plain language indicates that the purpose of the easement was to

provide access to Geneva Lake for boating. The 1973 easement thus provides the

riparian right to place a pier. See Stroesser, 172 Wis. 2d at 668, 670 (the deed

expressly providing the right “to use the lake shore for bathing, boating or kindred

purposes” granted riparian rights to access the lake from the lake shore). 

¶12 While the above analysis is dispositive, we further reject Stone

Manor’s argument that the easement’s explicit reference to a row boat and boat lift

effectively eliminates access via a pier. “We have long recognized that, implied in

every easement, unless otherwise stated, is the right of the dominant estate to do

what is reasonably necessary to enjoy the easement.” Garza, 374

Wis. 2d 555, ¶29. The court in Garza explained,

[T]he holder of an easement ... is entitled to use the

servient estate in a manner that is reasonably necessary for

the convenient enjoyment of the servitude. The manner,

frequency, and intensity of the use may change over time to

take advantage of developments in technology and to

accommodate normal development of the dominant estate

or enterprise benefited by the servitude. 

Id. (citation omitted).
No. 2020AP35

9

¶13 Beyond the easement’s grant of riparian rights that include the right

to construct and maintain a pier, the pier placed by the Hintons was “reasonably 

necessary” to enjoy the easement under its plain terms. As the Hintons argue on 

appeal, “[b]y arguing that the Easement allows no pier at all, Stone Manor is 

saying that the Easement contemplates that the Hintons will wade into Geneva 

Lake to get to their boat lift, lower their boat, and clamber over the sides of the 

boat from the water. This is not a plausible interpretation of the Easement.” We 

agree.5 By example, in Hunter v. Keys, 229 Wis. 2d 710, 712, 600 N.W.2d 269 

(Ct. App. 1999), we concluded that “the grant of an access and egress easement 

necessarily implies the right to create and maintain a suitable access way.” 

Despite a lack of language allowing the holder of the easement to fill in wetlands 

or pave a road, we found these actions reasonably necessary to accomplish the 

purpose of the easement. Id. at 715-17; see also Garza, 374 Wis. 2d 555, ¶¶39-40

(despite explicit contradictory language in easement calling for “wood pole 

structures,” court concluded that allowing other materials like steel was consistent

with the easement’s purpose). The pier was reasonably necessary to enjoy the 

purpose of the easement.

¶14 Stone Manor separately argues that the court erroneously exercised 

its discretion when it prevented an expert from testifying that “a pier is not 

necessary for use of the 1973 Easement.” We review a trial court’s decision to 

exclude expert testimony under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard. 

 

5

 Stone Manor acknowledges that the boat lift must be in the water to be used. 

Nevertheless, they contend the Hintons could also use a row boat to get to their boat lift, 

contemplating that, instead of wading in the water, the Hintons could climb from one boat to 

another, including transporting gear and supplies. We find this interpretation to be equally 

implausible, as doing so would not only be difficult, particularly for those who are elderly or less 

agile, but would also be, at times, unwieldy and unsafe. 
No. 2020AP35

10

Seifert v. Balink, 2017 WI 2, ¶93, 372 Wis. 2d 525, 888 N.W.2d 816. We need 

not fully analyze this argument given our conclusions above. The only issue for 

the jury was whether the pier placed by the Hintons was reasonable given the 

language of the easement. The parties presented evidence as to the reasonableness 

of the Hintons’ pier. Stone Manor’s expert’s opinion that “a pier is not necessary 

for use of the 1973 Easement” was not the question before the jury, and therefore 

the court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in excluding that opinion.6 

(Emphasis added.)

¶15 Finally, Stone Manor appeals from the trial court’s denial of its 

motions after verdict pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 805.14(5)(c). Stone Manor argues 

that the jury’s answers to Questions No. 1 and 3 should have been changed from 

“no” to “yes,” as “the jury’s answers ignored what was undisputed evidence and 

despite what should have been a ruling on a point of law.”7 “When considering a 

motion to change the jury’s answers to verdict questions, we view the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the verdict and affirm the verdict if it is supported by 

any credible evidence.” Kubichek v. Kotecki, 2011 WI App 32, ¶14, 332 Wis. 2d 

 

6

 The trial court also made clear that it questioned the expert’s conclusions as they

contained “no explanation” as to why the Hintons did not need a pier. We see no error in the 

court’s exercise of discretion.

7

 Question No. 1 asked, “Have the Hintons violated the Easement by placing, 

maintaining and using a boat lift and pier that are wider than the Hintons’ riparian zone?” 

Question No. 3 asked, “Have the Hintons violated the Easement by placing their pier into Geneva 

Lake and attaching their boat lift in its current placement?” The jury answered both of these 

questions in the negative. 

To the extent that Stone Manor is arguing that the questions should have never gone to 

the jury, as they involved a question of law, we note that the record indicates that Stone Manor 

never objected to these special verdict questions; in fact, they requested them. Failure to object at 

the jury instruction or verdict conference stage “constitutes a waiver of any error in the proposed 

instructions or verdict.” WIS. STAT. § 805.13(3). As Stone Manor’s arguments also focus on the 

sufficiency of the evidence, we will address its arguments.
No. 2020AP35

11

522, 796 N.W.2d 858; see also WIS. STAT. § 805.14(1). “The standard of review 

is even more stringent where, as here, the [trial] court upheld the jury’s findings on 

motions after verdict.” Kubichek, 332 Wis. 2d 522, ¶14. We will uphold the 

jury’s verdict absent “a complete failure of proof that the verdict must be based on 

speculation.” Id. (quoting Coryell v. Conn, 88 Wis. 2d 310, 315, 276 N.W.2d 723 

(1979)).

¶16 As addressed above, given the conclusion that the Hintons were 

within their rights to construct a pier, the question before the jury was whether the 

pier, as constructed, was consistent with the language of the easement. We 

conclude that the jury’s verdict was supported by credible evidence. Jeff Reed, 

owner of Reed Construction, a company that does work building, placing, and 

repairing piers and rock sea walls on Geneva Lake, testified at trial. He explained

that he had worked on a previous version of the Hintons’ pier decades earlier in 

the 1980s when he was in his teens. According to Reed and based on his 

experience in the industry, the current location of the Hintons’ boat lift, and thus 

implicitly the attached pier, is reasonable for use of their boat, given water levels 

and fluctuations. Reed further testified that in his opinion, the Hintons’ pier does 

not “interfere[] with the riparian rights of any other riparian owners,” including 

Stone Manor, and that he had no “problems” maneuvering “big barges” between 

the Hintons’ pier and Stone Manor’s pier to do his work each year. See Garza,

374 Wis. 2d 555, ¶29 (“Unless authorized by the terms of the servitude, the holder 

is not entitled to cause unreasonable damage to the servient estate or interfere 

unreasonably with its enjoyment.” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, there was 

some evidence from which the jury could conclude that the current placement of 

the pier was reasonable and not a violation of the terms of the easement.
No. 2020AP35

12

¶17 Specifically, Stone Manor takes issue with the “riparian zone” 

language in Question No. 1, explaining that the expert witness testified as to the 

size of the riparian zone based on WIS. ADMIN. CODE § NR 326.07(2), which he 

found to be no wider than the ten-foot width of the easement.8 Stone Manor 

suggests that the expert’s testimony was uncontroverted. As the trial court 

recognized, the language of the easement does not include any discussion of a 

“riparian zone.” Further, Stone Manor did not present any credible evidence that 

the parties intended to incorporate a riparian zone within the terms of the 

easement, nor has Stone Manor cited any legal authority for the conclusion that the 

easement limits the water access to a certain riparian zone. As the Hintons had 

riparian rights and the easement itself did not expressly prohibit the pier, then the 

issue of the placement and size of the pier is under DNR control.9

¶18 There was contradictory evidence presented at trial in this case, and 

the jury was within its right to accept or disregard a witness’s testimony. See

Weiss v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 197 Wis. 2d 365, 389-90, 541 N.W.2d 753 

(1995) (“When there is any credible evidence to support a jury’s verdict, ‘even 

though it be contradicted and the contradictory evidence be stronger and more 

convincing, nevertheless the verdict ... must stand.’” (citation omitted)); Brogan 

 

8

 The present pier extends “65 feet into Geneva Lake.” While the Hintons state it is “12 

feet wide,” we note that the photos show a much narrower pier at the shoreline, but with the boat 

lift at its side, the width appears to be twelve feet at the end of the pier.

9

 “[WISCONSIN STAT. ch.] 30 embodies a system of regulation of Wisconsin’s navigable 

waters pursuant to the public trust doctrine.” ABKA P’ship, 255 Wis. 2d 486, ¶11. “Regulation 

and enforcement of this public trust rests with both the legislature and the DNR.” Id., ¶12; see 

also WIS. ADMIN. CODE § NR 326.07 (indicating “the department shall” utilize the proscribed 

methods “to determine whether a pier or boat shelter interferes with the right of an adjacent 

riparian”). Thus, the DNR and the legislature decide if one’s use of riparian rights violate a

riparian owner’s rights.
No. 2020AP35

13

v. Industrial Cas. Ins. Co., 132 Wis. 2d 229, 239, 392 N.W.2d 439 (Ct. App. 

1986) (“When the parties offer conflicting testimony by qualified experts, the 

issue becomes one of weight of the testimony and credibility of the witnesses, 

which is within the province of the jury. The jury may accept or disregard expert 

testimony.” (citation omitted)). The jury finding can be summarized in its 

negative answer to Question No. 3 of the special verdict, which asked: “Have the 

Hintons violated the Easement by placing their pier into Geneva Lake and 

attaching their boat lift in its current placement?” We see no error in the court’s 

failure to grant Stone Manor’s motions after verdict.

¶19 In this case, the installation and use of a pier to access the boat lift is 

directly related to the purpose for which the easement was created: access to the 

lake for boating. As the court was correct that a pier was contemplated by the 

terms and purposes of the easement and as sufficient evidence supports the jury’s 

verdict as to the reasonableness of the pier, we affirm.

Cross-Appeal 

¶20 The Hintons cross-appeal in the alternative, claiming that Stone 

Manor’s action was subject to claim preclusion and that they have a prescriptive 

easement for the pier. The court disagreed, concluding that claim preclusion did 

not apply and that the Hintons’ assertion of a prescriptive easement failed as a 

matter of law. The Hintons note in their brief that as their cross-appeal is “in the 

alternative,” if we affirm the judgment on the jury’s verdict “there will be no need 

to address the cross-appeal issues.” We need not reach the cross-appeal. As we 

affirm the judgment in favor of the Hintons, a determination on the Hintons’

alternative arguments will have no bearing on the issues in the case. Only 
No. 2020AP35

14

dispositive issues need be addressed. See Lake Delavan Prop. Co., LLC v. City of 

Delavan, 2014 WI App 35, ¶14, 353 Wis. 2d 173, 844 N.W.2d 632.

¶21 No costs to either party.

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.

RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.