To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Here’s a roundup of recent winery lawsuit news…
Judge Maloney Issues New Ruling
As Peninsula Township Supervisor Maura Sanders mentioned in her most recent Weekly Note, Judge Paul K. Maloney issued an “Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Judgment” on August 14. What does this mean? Read on…
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
As we all know by now, on July 7, Maloney awarded the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP) nearly $50 million in damages in the lawsuit that’s been ongoing since the Fall of 2020, when WOMP sued Peninsula Township for a variety of things not included in the Zoning Ordinance. On July 18, WOMP filed a motion requesting that the Court amend that judgment to include pre-judgment interest in the amount of nearly $8.1 million. Read that motion here.
Maloney denied this request, writing, “In the court’s judgment, an award of $8,097,676.80 in addition to a nearly $50 million judgment would be excessive for several reasons … The court concludes that the existing judgment adequately compensates the Wineries. Importantly, at least some of the costs associated with this lawsuit will be paid by the taxpayers. This lawsuit also raised a host of novel issues, and some of the constitutional violations were more glaring than others. It cannot be said that Defendants had no good faith arguments in opposing this action.”
He added that the court declined to award injunctive relief, meaning that nothing has changed with regard to what the wineries can or cannot do. Also, “The Township elected to go to trial without a damages expert, and that decision undoubtedly contributed to the size of the judgment. Equity does not favor an award of prejudgment interest.”
Read his ruling here.
Note that the nearly $8.1 million is only the prejudgment interest. Maloney said he would address the attorneys’ fees in a future order.
Township Properties Are Being Assessed
Regarding the idea of selling Township properties to help pay for the WOMP judgment, at their August 12 meeting, the Township Board voted to move forward with the 2025-2026 budget that was previously passed for the remainder of the fiscal year. Nothing will be sold at this time, and there are no immediate plans to sell anything.
However, they will be accepting bids to appraise all Township real property assets to get a clear understanding of the value. “We will maintain agility with the ability to reassess as more information becomes available with the WOMP appeal moving forward,” says Maura.
Calculate Your Liability
In December 2023, I wrote about a new group, Friends of Old Mission Peninsula, that formed to oppose the WOMP lawsuit. On their website is a calculator which lets you plug in the taxable value of your property and see what you owe of the — at that time — $200 million in WOMP damages.
As of July 2025, they have updated the calculator to include options for damages of $200 million, $135 million and $50 million (the current amount). Again, you plug in the taxable value of your property, and it gives you the amount you owe the wineries for damages, which would be assessed on your tax bill. Check out your liability here.
Again, we don’t know if $50 million will be the final judgment, as the Township has appealed the judgment, and whatever the amount is, township insurance may cover some of it (although one of the insurance companies has sued the Township claiming they are not required to pay any of the judgment.)
Articles in the Wall Street Journal and Daily Mail
I’ve had a bunch of people send me the story that ran in the Wall Street Journal on August 16. Another one ran in the Daily Mail on August 6. (Side note: I wrote for both of these newspapers back in the last century when I was freelancing full-time, along with the New York Times, L.A. Times and a thousand others, so it’s not earth-shattering to see stories about us out there in the world.)
As for the Journal story, Maura had this to say to the writer, Joe Barrett:
Joe,
For nearly 40 years, Peninsula Township has worked with the wineries to balance agricultural preservation with limited commercial uses in a way that benefits everyone. We worked hard with local farmers decades ago to enable these uses with valid limits to avoid unlimited commercial use and preserve that balance. Original winery owners supported balanced regulations and even championed a local Old Mission Peninsula wine appellation to promote locally grown grapes.
The wineries continue to benefit from the township’s efforts. This collaborative approach has created extraordinary value for the wineries while preserving what makes Old Mission Peninsula special. Our residents have voted three times to tax themselves to purchase development rights from willing farmers, creating one of America’s top ten farmland preservation success stories according to the American Farmland Trust. The wineries have thrived precisely because of these preservation efforts.
The wineries now want unlimited commercial uses including full restaurants, event centers, late night receptions, and amplified music. This would destroy the very agricultural character that makes their businesses successful and the township so special. Other premier wine regions in America, including Napa Valley, do not allow such unrestricted commercial uses in their agricultural zones.
We believe the court’s decision is fundamentally wrong and threatens not just Peninsula Township, but agricultural preservation and wine-growing efforts nationwide. The line between agriculture and commercial is important, and when it gets eroded, there are real harms. We are pursuing an appeal to preserve sustainable agriculture that has worked for decades.
We think it’s important that people understand why we’re fighting so hard. The potential burden on our 6,000 residents is unconscionable. We are fighting for our history, our culture, and our future. Thanks for your time this morning. Obviously, we are strongly engaged!
WOMP Files Brief for Sanctions
On August 15, WOMP filed a brief against the Township and Protect the Peninsula — officially, “Plaintiffs’ Brief in Support of Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Peninsula Township Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court for Withholding a Third Insurance Policy.” That’s a mouthful.
The Reader’s Digest version is that WOMP is seeking sanctions against Peninsula Township for repeated and unjustified failures to disclose insurance policies relevant to the litigation, despite multiple court orders and a prior sanction.
WOMP is asking the Court to impose sanctions under its inherent authority and Rules 26(g) and 37. They argue that the Township deliberately withheld critical insurance information for years and that this ongoing pattern of noncompliance warrants serious court sanctions, not only against the Township but also its legal counsel.
“The Wineries are aware that an appropriate sanction post-judgment may be difficult,” writes WOMP attorney Joe Infante. “The attorneys’ fees incurred in drafting this motion will not be sufficient to punish Peninsula Township and its counsel. The Wineries leave it up to this Court’s discretion under its inherent authority to determine the appropriate punishment. But, given the egregiousness of the conduct, and given the historical games the Township has played with its insurance coverage in this case, the Wineries and their counsel felt compelled to bring this issue to the Court’s attention.”
Read the Brief here.
The Latest from Protect the Peninsula – $50 Million Isn’t Enough for the Winery Owners?!
Here’s the latest from Protect the Peninsula (PTP).
After the recent court judgment awarding the 11 winery owners nearly $50 million, they went back for more, asking the court for an additional award of $8 million in interest on the $50 million.
Judge Maloney denied their request, calling the additional $8 million request “excessive” and citing several reasons for his decision:
- The existing judgment already adequately compensates the Wineries.
- Taxpayers will bear some of the costs of the judgment.
- The lawsuit raised “a host of novel issues,” and PTP and the Township had some “good faith arguments.”
- The wineries lost their quest for injunctive relief, a key part of their lawsuit.
Obviously, this is significant for the taxpayers who would have had to pay that $8 million to the winery owners. And, it’s good news because it means the case can now move forward to the appeals court.
Further, we strongly believe that the $50 million award will not survive appeal. Here’s why:
- First, the money damages are the result of an unfair fight. From the start, PTP was denied any opportunity to defend against the winery owners’ claim for money damages. We will argue that injustice in the appeal.
- Second, in a lawsuit that has seen more than its share of head-scratchers, the winery owners’ money claim was based on illogical reasoning and bogus math. It was awarded “lost profits” for commercial events they never could — and still aren’t — allowed to host.
- Third, as has been widely reported, the $50 million judgment is based on the loss of “gross profits” – not net profits after costs like staffing, inventory, infrastructure (parking, septic), and so on. By the Wineries’ own math, adjusting for costs (from gross to net profits), $50 million becomes $3.85 million.
For these and other reasons, we are confident that justice, logic, and the rule of law will prevail at the court of appeals. The winery owners’ $50 million judgment is ephemeral – it will be reduced and likely disappear.
While we are resolute in pursuing appeal, PTP is and has always been open to negotiating a reasonable resolution that is fair and balanced. We have already participated in 4 mediations as well as other settlement attempts, and we will participate in any serious discussion to resolve this dispute fairly.
WOMP Files Notice of Cross Appeal
On August 19 (today), WOMP has filed a “Plaintiffs’ Notice of Cross Appeal.”
The text is brief and does not include specifics, other than: “Notice is hereby given that all Plaintiffs cross-appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the final judgment entered on July 7, 2025 (ECF No. 624), the Bench Opinion entered on July 7, 2025 (ECF No. 623), and all prior orders issued in this case.”
Read the Notice here.
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
That liability calculator doesn’t seem to work. Checked under our parcel number and under our names.
We as an Old Mission Community and residents should not attend or go to any of these wineries and support them in any way. No wine tours, beer buses. no alcohol sales, start with more Old Mission Police officers stopping people driving under the influence by knowing what is going on and stopping looking past them. Eating Cherries years ago, and using them in all types of cooking, canning were the life blood of the farmers. Even baby food was made of Cherries, apples, and vegetables. The winery owners just want money spent on their own booze, beer and wine. They have no idea how they are ruining our peninsula? Why take our tax paid funds that we paid to fund the nonprofit township properties like Bowers Harbor Park, Old Mission Lighthouse and nature preserved land by the State of Michigan and many others. Archie Park is not the Peninsula Township to sell. It’s protected by State Law Environmental Protection Agency.
I say that we take action to not support the commercialism of our Beautiful Land and protect against these mongers who doesn’t give the land back to the original people to grow and feed the people, instead of letting them ruin their health and life with an ideology of hatred that governs the land and the people that won’t go to their establishments. At night when you should be playing with your children or grandchildren teaching them about life and turn their attention back to living the Christian life going to church functions or
reading the good book maybe watching the kids in a healthy play and environmental science classroom going for a walk or hike. Try biking with your friends and family. Instead of building a mousetrap for money.