To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: Old Mission Gazette received this press release today from Maura Sanders, Peninsula Township Supervisor. Read on for the latest on the winery lawsuit. -jb
On November 14, 2025, counsel for the township sent correspondence to Miller Canfield, counsel for the wineries, advising them of the township’s desire to continue with settlement discussions and facilitation. The wineries have failed to respond.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
Earlier this week, on December 9, the township appointed a subcommittee to pursue settlement discussions with the wineries. Miller Canfield was aware of this based upon a news article from December 10, 2025. Chris Baldyga, president of WOMP, offered public comment at the end of the Dec. 9 township board meeting. He stated, “We are very motivated; we would love to settle.” In reference to the new subcommittee, Baldyga continued that WOMP is ready “to make meaningful progress…We are up and on the dance floor. We are waiting for you to join us. I would hate to just think it’s a lack of communication.”
Despite the township’s clear intent to proceed with settlement discussions, on December 11, 2025, Baldyga and WOMP’s legal counsel Joe Infante presented the township with a demand for payment on the judgment in the amount of $51,609,073.90.
Miller Canfield is demanding this payment in excess of $50,000,000.00 from the township and its taxpayers by September 14, 2026, knowing that this matter is still in the appeal stages in United States Federal Court, is subject to significant reduction or complete reversal, and that the township is willing to engage in settlement negotiations.
While the township remains willing to engage in settlement discussions on behalf of its taxpayers, this demand for payment from the township residents, which includes the winery owners themselves, is seen as a significant step backwards by the wineries and their counsel in the Township’s effort to work towards resolution of this matter for its residents.
– Maura Sanders, Peninsula Township Supervisor
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
WOMP action seen as “significant step backwards”. Sure, just like the notice of violation sent to the wineries in November was a major step forwards.
Confused over here. Perhaps I haven’t followed closely enough. Has the judge issued or ruled on a stay pending appeal, and has a supersedeas bond been posted? From what I understand, albeit maybe minimal, unless a stay is granted and secured, it’s fairly standard procedure for the prevailing party to request payment— even if they’re willing to negotiate a settlement?
Would the township not request payment on a judgement in their favor w no stay in place?
RECALL Maura Sanders. She has failed to do her job. She has failed to protect the peninsula. She has failed the citizens. She was elected to serve the township NOT eleven unelected elites.
Lost in all this controversy Is the fact that W0MP has launched a direct fiscal attack on our most vulnerable Old Mission neighbors: The elderly, retirees, care givers, and families with children. Many of these struggle with every day financial challenges and now they are to pay Tribute to a small group of people with whom they have previously. welcomed into their community and now discovered they have had a failed business plan and wish the community pay for what WOMP expected to make if not restricted by previously agreed upon ordinances governing business operations.
Maura Sanders continues what she has been doing, trying to get the wineries to talk, trying to resolve the situation and trying to shield our residents and our peninsula. Making every effort to clean up a problem that precedes her tenure is cause for thanks, not blame
Thanks for keeping us apprised, Maura. I think you’re right that it is duplicitous for WOMP to aggressively advance their demands for payment while simultaneously portraying the Township as the recalcitrant party unwilling to negotiate.
Ms. Florence sums up well, I think, the economic interests at stake for the citizens of the peninsula, though I don’t know that “failed business model” captures the wineries’ experience. I rather imagine they’re quite profitable with all the previously agreed upon restrictions in place. Profit maximization is what motivated the group to break the rules, and they got twice lucky with the township attorneys in September 2021, neglecting a key deadline, and a widely-regarded flawed judgment by Judge Malone in July 2025.
As for “Recall Maura”, please do start talking sense. How any person elected to this position in November 2024 could act in a more transparent and energetic manner, consistent with fiduciary obligations, I cannot imagine. It’s easy to gripe about outcomes. As a resident of OMP, having a $50M against my neighbors and me makes me angry, sad, and scared. But it is foolish to misapportion blame on our elected officials performing the thankless work of mitigating and reversing the damage of this attack on the citizenry.
Thank you Becky, Katie, J.P., Isaiah, Dave, Julie, and Maura!
I agree on every point, Glen. I am proud of each of them!
Thank you Maura for watching out for PENINSULA Rresidents. We appreciate hard work the township leaders are doing. I am so sorry people are personally attacking you when you walked in to this mess and trying to resolve it. Keep up the good work and know there are more supporters than opposers.
Thank you Maura, for all your time and efforts.