Sister Bay water tower. PC: Fox 11 Online
DOOR COUNTY, WI (WTAQ-WLUK) — Sister Bay has asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to review an appeals court decision which overturned its short-term rental policy. But the homeowners disagree that there needs to be more review of the case.
In 2022, Sister Bay adopted a short-term rental ordinance. It was later amended to limit rentals to using only four bedrooms. Several property owners sued, challenging that limit. In August, 2025, a Door County judge sided with the village. But the homeowner’s appealed. In a decision issued in July, the appeals court said since the law allows homeowners to rent their entire homes, the ordinance is void.
Sister Bay filed a motion asking the high court to take up the case. In Wisconsin, the Supreme Court decides which cases it will hear. If it takes the case, arguments will be scheduled. If it does not, the lower court ruling stands. There is no set timeline for the court to decide if to take the case.
In its motion, the village says the Supreme Court should take the case because there are several cases on the law which need to be resolved.
“Wisconsin’s short-term rental statute, Wis. Stat. 66.1014, adopted in 2017, has not been construed by the Supreme Court but has faced growing litigation in recent years. In the past two years, there have been three Court of Appeals decisions on the subject. Yet, there is still not a harmonious statutory interpretation of two competing statutory clauses: the “prohibition” clause that disallows local regulation, versus the “regulation” clause that preserves local regulation,” wrote attorney Remzy Bitar for the village.
However, attorney Luke Berg, representing the homeowners, contends the Supreme Court need not get review the case.
“The Court of Appeals’ unanimous decision is correct, straightforward, and does not need further review. Indeed, the Court of Appeals answered a single question: Does the Village of Sister Bay’s four bedroom limit on short-term rentals violate, or is it preempted by, Wisconsin’s right-to-rent law? And in rightly concluding “yes,” the Court of Appeals applied the “plain language” of that law, which squarely forbids municipalities from “prohibit[ing] the rental of” “any part of a home,” Berg wrote.
Comments