A lakefront homeowner likened his neighbor’s shoreline walks to a home invasion in a dispute that could be headed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
By Mariah Timms
Wall Street Journal
June 8, 2026
A recent trial in Shorewood, Wis., had all the trappings of a minor legal dispute. A disgruntled neighbor. A defendant representing himself who called his own father as a character witness. A $313 fine.
But if academic and devoted dog walker Paul Florsheim gets his way, the case will go all the way up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and reshape the contours of shoreline access to one of the Great Lakes.
It started when Florsheim started walking his two dogs past the Lake Michigan property of dentist Daniel Domagala, known locally for the time he spends in a Tiki-style boat house and deck that doubles as a surveillance post. From there, Domagala monitors traffic and sets off alarms to scare walkers, swimmers and kayakers away.
Florsheim repeatedly ignored signs outside the dentist’s house that said “PRIVATE PROPERTY BEYOND THIS SIGN” and “ONLY WATER ACCESS BEYOND THIS POINT.” Domagala kept calling the cops, and the village eventually issued a trespassing citation.
Rather than pay the fine and walk away, Florsheim dug in.
At stake is what right people in Wisconsin have to take a shoreline stroll. State law is clear that people can wade, swim or boat in state-protected waters, but things get murkier out of the water. Florsheim, who was ticketed for walking on dry sand—just barely—argues it is absurd to say he could wade past but not put a foot higher up the shore.
Florsheim lost to the village at trial, but the judge, Margo S. Kirchner, indicated the case was far from dead.
She said she was obligated to rule for Domagala because of a prior case involving Lake Winnebago. In that 1923 case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a landowner who wanted to water his cattle had priority over the use of the shore, not pedestrians wanting to cross the beach when the water level was low.
Kirchner said that ruling seemed to apply in this case, but indicated a decision favoring the landowner over the public was out of touch with the practices in other states.
“Perhaps Doemel should be overruled,” she said of the cattle farmer case.
Homeowners’ claim to the beach in front of their property has long been the subject of legal fights.
In Rhode Island, a case has been ongoing for three years over a law that moved the boundary of a public beach further inland. In Florida, the resident of a multimillion-dollar Mediterranean compound has been fighting with Palm Beach over a policy enforcing public access to some of the area’s beaches.
Florsheim, 66 years old, recently retired from his job as a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He has been walking on the beach for more than 50 years, since his childhood spent in a 1960s ranch house three doors down from Domagala. His great-grandfather founded the famous shoe company.
Florsheim has two dogs: Leo, a two-year-old German shepherd he calls “a bit of a handful,” and Rosie, a six-year-old border collie mix. They need a lot of walking. “I do, too,” he said.
He said he didn’t set out to create a legal test case but he wasn’t the kind of person to just pay the fine quietly. “My personality is such that if I’m confronted with it I don’t back away from that,” he said.
His trial took place in December in front of an audience of mostly silver-haired locals.
The village called Domagala as a witness. He testified he complained about passersby some 50 times last summer alone; Shorewood Police said they have responded to his calls for years. He often sets off alarms, he said, to scare people from lounging on his property, which sits about 50 feet from a public beach. “They sit around like they own the place,” he said.
Because Florsheim had no lawyer, he cross-examined his neighbor himself. “Why did you want to prevent me from walking across the beach?” he said.
Domagala said he never gave Florsheim permission to walk on his property. At one point in the trial he likened his neighbor’s shoreline walks to a home invasion. “Imagine somebody is in your house saying this is not your house,” Domagala said.
Locals have generally backed Florsheim’s view. “It’s the people’s lake,” said one commenter on Facebook.
In an interview, 58-year-old Rebecca Simenz, who lives nearby, said she walks along the shore all the time. “I certainly didn’t feel I was doing anything wrong either. Now I would certainly think twice about it,” she said.
Florsheim, who is now represented by lawyers from the nonprofit Midwest Environmental Advocates, has appealed his case to a higher court.
Domagala didn’t return requests for comment. A handful of commenters among the hundreds on social media came down on his side: “Why is it when people own waterfront properties others feel it is ok to trespass,” one wrote. “Do you like people walking in your back yard?”