Annette M. Flynn v. Brewers Community Foundation, Inc.

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
May 19, 2026
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2026AP233 Cir. Ct. No. 2025SC6004

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I

ANNETTE M. FLYNN AND MATTHEW L. FLYNN,

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

V.

BREWERS COMMUNITY FOUNDATION, INC.,

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
CAROLINA M. STARK, Judge. Affirmed.

¶1 PETRASHEK, J.1 The Brewers Community Foundation 50/50
raffle is a popular feature at Milwaukee Brewers baseball games, awarding as a

1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(a) (2023-24).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.
No. 2026AP233

prize one-half of the revenue from ticket sales to a participating fan with the
remainder benefiting the Foundation and its community initiatives. A fan can
participate in the raffle by purchasing a ticket for $2.00. The Foundation draws a
winning raffle number during the game, which is announced through the public
address system and displayed on the scoreboard. The fan with the ticket
corresponding to the winning number receives the prize.

¶2 The raffle contest on July 7, 2023, did not go smoothly. Annette
Flynn purchased ten raffle tickets while tailgating, and it is undisputed that she
was the holder of the winning ticket that was initially selected. However, Annette
was seated in a location with the scoreboard behind her. She did not see the
winning number displayed, nor did she hear the winning number announced.
Annette is not certain when she learned she held the winning ticket, but after
becoming so informed she asserts that she asked an usher where to go and was
directed to field level guest services.

¶3 The raffle’s official rules at the time required the holder of the
winning ticket to claim the prize at an identified 50/50 table on the loge level
concourse, and the person was given “until the end of the top of the 7th inning
(i.e., until the third out is recorded in the top of the 7th inning)” to do so. When
Annette eventually reached the 50/50 table, the Foundation determined that
Annette did not timely present the winning ticket, and a new winning ticket had
been drawn and announced. The holder of that ticket received the prize payout.

¶4 Annette and her husband, Matthew Flynn, filed this small claims
action, alleging they were wrongfully denied their winnings from the raffle

2
No. 2026AP233

contest.2 Following discovery, the Foundation moved for summary judgment,
which the circuit court granted. The court concluded that the official rules for the
raffle vested the Foundation with sole discretion to determine the winner of the
prize and that the Foundation had reasonably exercised that discretion when it
determined that Annette was not the official winner. The court also remarked that
the Flynns, whose only defense to the detailed timeline set forth by the Foundation
was that it differed from their personal recollections, had not established a genuine
dispute of material fact regarding the timing of Annette’s arrival at the 50/50
table.3

¶5 The Flynns objected to the ruling, asserting among other things that
the circuit court had erred by granting summary judgment while their motion to
compel discovery was pending. The court construed the objection as a motion for
reconsideration and denied it with the observation that it was “well aware of the
discovery issue cited in the motion when it granted the Defendant’s summary
judgment motion.” The Flynns now appeal pro se.

¶6 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Estate of
Paswaters v. American Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 2004 WI App 233, ¶13, 277 Wis. 2d

2
The prize amount was approximately $13,000, but the Flynns sought only $10,000, the
limit for small claims actions at the time.
3
The timeline presented by the Foundation, which used video evidence recorded during
the game, posited that the winning number was displayed on the scoreboard at approximately
8:51 p.m., and the third out of the top of the seventh inning was recorded at approximately
9:12 p.m. According to the Foundation, Annette could be seen leaving her seating area at
approximately 9:10 p.m., she arrived at the field level guest relations desk at approximately
9:14 p.m., and she arrived at the 50/50 table on the loge level at approximately 9:15 p.m.
Because we agree with the circuit court that the official rules vest the Foundation with the sole
discretion to determine the raffle winner under the circumstances here, we need not address
whether there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the Foundation’s proffered
timeline.

3
No. 2026AP233

549, 692 N.W.2d 299. Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and no genuine issue of material fact
exists. WIS. STAT. § 802.08(2). At the summary judgment stage, all facts and
reasonable inferences from those facts are viewed in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party. Bohm v. Leiber, 2020 WI App 52, ¶8, 393 Wis. 2d 757,
948 N.W.2d 370. Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists is itself a
question of law for this court. Hoskins v. Dodge County, 2002 WI App. 40, ¶31,
251 Wis. 2d 276, 642 N.W.2d 213.

¶7 The Flynns generally argue the grant of summary judgment was in
error because there were genuine issues of material fact and outstanding discovery
requests relating to the timing of Annette’s visit to the 50/50 table. The Flynns
contend the video evidence provided by the Foundation is inconsistent with their
observations and recollections, and their motion to compel sought the original
video files with metadata; date, time and system information relating to the
creation of each file; and the hash value of each video file to verify integrity.
Their motion stated they intended to submit the files for “independent forensic
analysis … to determine whether timestamps, encoding, or frame data have been
altered.” Based on the foregoing, the Flynns contend the exact sequence of events
that occurred on July 7, 2023, is a matter for a jury to decide.

¶8 As the circuit court correctly recognized, the clear and unambiguous
terms of the Foundation’s official contest rules resolve this case. The Flynns

4
No. 2026AP233

undisputedly agreed to the official rules by participating in the raffle.4 See Leitzke
v. Magazine Marketplace, Inc., 168 Wis. 2d 668, 671-72, 484 N.W.2d 364 (Ct.
App. 1992) (holding the elements of a contract were satisfied by participation in a
game card contest). The rules vested the Foundation with “the sole discretion to
determine whether a Participant with a winning Raffle ticket is the Official Winner
of the Prize for the respective Drawing. Sponsor’s decision concerning the
eligibility of the Official Winner and the validity of the winning Raffle ticket shall
be final and binding.” After setting forth what was required of the person with the
winning ticket—including timely presentation of the ticket at the designated
table—the rules established that the failure to “claim the prize by the stated time
and in the stated manner” would result in disqualification and forfeiture of the
prize.

¶9 Under these rules, there is no genuine issue of material fact
regarding whether the Flynns won the contest. They did not, because the
Foundation concluded that Annette was late in presenting the winning ticket. The
rules vest the Foundation with exclusive discretion to make that determination,

4
Printed on the back of each ticket was the web address of the official rules, which
stated: “By participating in the Brewers Community Foundation 50/50 Raffle … each participant
(“Participant”) agrees to be bound by these “Official Rules” and by the decisions of the Brewers
Community Foundation, Inc. (collectively, the “Rules”), and the Rules shall be binding and final
as to all matters related to the Raffle.”

5
No. 2026AP233

and they afford the Foundation with a limited right to be wrong.5 As a result, even
if the Flynns’ personal observations were sufficient to create doubt about the
Foundation’s timeline, and even if the Flynns were able to show errors in the
reliability of the Foundation’s video evidence, doing so would not create a genuine
issue of material fact regarding whether the Foundation had appropriately
exercised its contractual discretion to determine the contest winner.

¶10 The Flynns also argue that the Foundation’s discretionary authority
conflicts with aspects of Wisconsin law governing raffles. Specifically, they argue
the raffle here ran afoul of WIS. STAT. §§ 563.907(1) and 563.908(1), which
establish, respectively, who can conduct a raffle and how a raffle is to be
conducted. The Flynns forfeited this argument by failing to develop it before the
circuit court.6 See Schonscheck v. Paccar, Inc., 2003 WI App 79, ¶10, 261
Wis. 2d 769, 661 N.W.2d 476. But even on the merits, we are unpersuaded that
the official rules contravene any of the cited statutory provisions.

5
Every contract carries with it a duty of good faith and fair dealing. Kreckel v.
Walbridge Aldinger Co., 2006 WI App 168, ¶20, 295 Wis. 2d 649, 721 N.W.2d 508.
Accordingly, we stop short of endorsing a construction of the official rules that would permit the
Foundation to reject winners for reasons extrinsic to the contractual requirements (personal
animus against the winner, for example) or for patently unreasonable applications of those
requirements. See Pruett v. WESTconsin Credit Union, 2023 WI App 57, ¶44, 409 Wis. 2d 607,
998 N.W.2d 529 (observing that the discretionary powers under a contract must be exercised in
good faith and for any purpose within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of
formation). Deciding whether a winner arrived just before or just after the time period for
claiming the prize expired is a matter plainly within the discretion afforded to the Foundation by
the contract.
6
The Flynns contend they did not forfeit their statutory argument because they
consistently challenged the “enforceability of the rules” and the Foundation’s “discretionary
determination of the winner.” However, they do not direct us to anything in the appellate record
in which they specifically raised statutory noncompliance. General assertions are insufficient
preserve an issue for review. See Bishop v. City of Burlington, 2001 WI App 154, ¶8, 246
Wis. 2d 879, 631 N.W.2d 656 (“A litigant must raise an issue with sufficient prominence such
that the trial court understands that it is being called upon to make a ruling.”).

6
No. 2026AP233

By the Court.—Orders affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.

7