Court Opinion

ID: 9668992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:36:04.829256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:51.015623
License: Public Domain

*519WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.
¶ 71. (concurring). First, it is important to note what this case is not about. It is not as one commentator stated — see Ray Rivard, Who Will Guard the Guards ?, Lakeland Times (Minoc-qua, Wisconsin), June 21, 2002, at 11-12 — about whether private docks and piers belong to the state or the private owner. This case involves the concept of multi-owners of one dock or pier, known as dockomini-ums, and it does not touch upon individual docks and piers as they are generally known today.
¶ 72. Also, it is not about allowing a non-property owner to cross private property to access the water, as alleged by the same concerned commentator. This case does not touch upon the right of private property owners to keep whomever they want off their property.
¶ 73. What this case is about is the right of joint riparian owners who are part of a condominium to place a dockominium, owned jointly by the owners on the public waters abutting their property. Most significantly, and why I concur, it is about whether condominium owners have a riparian zone significantly smaller than could exist under any other form of real property ownership, and thereby have a right to construct and operate a dock or docks that no other private landowner would be allowed.
¶ 74. I join the majority opinion, notwithstanding my belief that the majority opinion does not go far enough. I would prefer the holding of the court of appeals: dockominiums are a per se violation of the public trust doctrine. Putting it another way, I would hold that the conveyance of dockage rights pursuant to a condominium agreement is a conveyance that is forbidden under Wis. Stat. § 30.133(1). I reach this conclusion for a simple reason: allowing one riparian owner to divide the owner's riparian zone and sepa*520rately convey legal interest in the resulting "lots" will have significant detrimental effect on the public waters of this state. This concept was well expressed in the brief of the Wisconsin Association of Lakes, Inc., which stated: "No statute has ever expressly authorized a riparian owner to fractionalize the riparian zone. . . . Until this case arose, no court had ever considered whether a riparian has an implied right to do so... . Subdivision of the riparian zone is beyond the reasonable use rights of riparian owners."
¶ 75. The dissent misses the mark when it asserts, in passing, that the only change here was a change in ownership. That is akin to the old saw: "Besides that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?" The change in ownership is critical because the change involves going from one owner with riparian rights to potentially 407 owners with riparian rights of ownership in the dock. That is a fact that the dissent minimizes, but to me it is the most significant of all.
¶ 76. State law as well as local ordinances mandate minimum lot widths on lakes, varying from 65 feet to 200 feet or more. This of course greatly limits the number of piers and docks allowable on the shoreline. The concept of allowing a riparian owner to fractionalize the owner's riparian rights subverts this policy. Again, as stated by the Wisconsin Association of Lakes, Inc., "excessive fragmentation of the riparian zone is detrimental to the public interest."
¶ 77. It is axiomatic that the public waters of this state belong to the public. The public is entitled to the full reasonable use and enjoyment of these waters, including the enjoyment that comes with the natural beauty of the waters. One can easily imagine the damage to the aesthetic appeal of our public waters if this concept is allowed. Most lakes in this state are far *521smaller than the 5,262 acres of Geneva Lake. Imagine the damage to the aesthetic appeal of allowing a single property owner on a 250-acre lake the right to condo-miniumize his or her 200 feet of frontage and then provide his or her riparian rights of dockage to the resultant numerous owners. The court avoided the fundamental issue this time, but it will be back.
¶ 78. It is a very slippery slope ABKA invites us to navigate. I would respectfully refuse the invitation.