Paul Florsheim was walking his two dogs, Leo and Rosie, along the shoreline of Lake Michigan in Shorewood, Wis., as he had done for more than 50 years. But this time, the stretch of beach in front of dentist Daniel Domagala’s property had become the center of a legal fight that could reach the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The conflict began in 2025 when Florsheim ignored signs outside Domagala’s home that read “PRIVATE PROPERTY BEYOND THIS SIGN” and “ONLY WATER ACCESS BEYOND THIS POINT.” Domagala, who monitors the beach from a Tiki-style boathouse and deck he uses as a surveillance post, set off alarms and repeatedly called police. The village of Shorewood eventually issued Florsheim a trespassing citation carrying a $313 fine.
Rather than pay, Florsheim dug in. “My personality is such that if I’m confronted with it I don’t back away from that,” he said in an interview.
At a bench trial in December, Domagala testified that he had complained about passersby some 50 times last summer alone. Shorewood police confirmed they have responded to Domagala’s calls for years. Domagala said he used alarms 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.
Florsheim, who had no lawyer at the time, cross-examined his neighbor directly. “Why did you want to prevent me from walking across the beach?” he asked. Domagala said he never gave permission. He likened Florsheim’s shoreline walks to a home invasion. “Imagine somebody is in your house saying this is not your house,” Domagala said.
Municipal Judge Margo S. Kirchner ruled for Domagala and the village, but she indicated the case raised broader questions. She said she was obligated to follow a 1923 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, Doemel v. Boelter, which addressed a dispute between a landowner who wanted to water his cattle and pedestrians seeking to cross the shore on dry sand. In that case, the court favored the landowner. “Perhaps Doemel should be overruled,” Kirchner said, noting the precedent seemed out of step with practices in other states.
Florsheim, who retired from his job as a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, grew up in a house three doors down from Domagala. His great-grandfather founded Florsheim Shoes. He said he had been walking on the beach since childhood and did not set out to create a legal test case.
“I certainly didn’t feel I was doing anything wrong either,” said Rebecca Simenz, 58, a nearby resident who said she walks along the shore regularly. “Now I would certainly think twice about it.”
Florsheim is now represented by lawyers from Midwest Environmental Advocates, a nonprofit environmental law firm, and has appealed the case to a higher court. The appeal could eventually reach the Wisconsin Supreme Court, potentially giving the state the opportunity to revisit the 1923 precedent.
Homeowners’ claims to the beach in front of their property have long sparked legal fights across the country. In Rhode Island, a case has been ongoing for three years over a law that moved the public beach boundary further inland. In Florida, the owner 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.
The public has largely backed Florsheim’s view in social media comments. “It’s the people’s lake,” one Facebook user wrote. But a handful of commenters sided with Domagala. “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?”