Key Points

  • The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed a temporary injunction that barred the Hatchers from disrupting weddings and events at Restorical LLC's Sydonie Mansion.
  • The court held that no competent, substantial evidence supported irreparable harm: Restorical showed no cancelations or lost bookings, it offered no evidence explaining why any lost business could not be quantified given its nine-year track record, and a single partial refund was calculable.
  • The court accepted that the evidence supported a finding of a harmful nuisance but held the harm was not shown to be irreparable, and it remanded for further proceedings.
  • The court did not reach the constitutionality of section 823.16, Florida's gun-range noise immunity statute, which is before the Florida Supreme Court in Southern Tactical Range v. Gartman, and left open whether the Evidence Code bars post-hearing affidavits at contested temporary-injunction hearings.
  • Judge Mize, concurring, wrote that cases treating the total destruction of a business as irreparable harm, without requiring that the business's value be incalculable, cannot be squared with the rule that irreparable harm means harm not compensable by money damages.

A Florida appeals court on Oct. 30 threw out an order that barred a couple from disrupting weddings at the neighboring Sydonie Mansion in Mount Dora with gunfire, chainsaws and airboat engines. The court held that the venue never proved it faced harm that money damages could not repair.

A three-judge panel of the Sixth District Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the temporary injunction. Orange County Circuit Judge Michael Deen had granted it to Restorical LLC, which owns the mansion. Judge Gannam wrote for the court, joined by Judges Stargel and Mize, and Judge Mize added a concurrence.

The decision leaves in place Restorical's private nuisance lawsuit against its neighbors, Bradley and Audrey Hatcher, but strips away the order that protected its events while the case goes forward. The panel held that an owner's fear of losing business, without evidence of cancelations, does not establish irreparable harm, especially without evidence explaining why any lost business could not be quantified given the venue's nine-year track record of events.

Restorical's owners, Clark and Amy Frogley, live in the historic mansion, where Restorical had hosted weddings for around nine years at the time of suit. It averaged two to three weddings a week during its September-to-May busy season. The Hatchers live next door, where they keep dogs, boats, various motor vehicles and a shooting range.

Restorical claimed that before 2025 the Hatchers sporadically disrupted weddings by playing loud music on speakers aimed at the mansion and letting their dogs run loose on its grounds. The disruptions intensified in 2025, the company alleged, when the Hatchers began interrupting weddings "with, for example, loud gunfire and revving chainsaw and airboat engines."

After a hearing at which both couples testified, Judge Deen found Restorical likely to succeed on its nuisance claim. The judge described "rapid gunfire, revving engines, use of airboats, operation of chainsaws, and release of dogs, all timed to coincide with wedding ceremonies," and found "[t]hose injuries are irreparable and not adequately compensable by monetary damages." The order barred the Hatchers from disrupting Restorical's events and required Restorical to give them 24 hours' written notice of each one.

A party seeking a temporary injunction in Florida must prove four elements, and failure on any one requires denial. The Hatchers raised several challenges, but the court addressed only irreparable harm and whether Restorical had an adequate remedy at law, meaning money damages. It took the two together, quoting a Fourth District decision that "[i]rreparable harm and an inadequate remedy at law are two sides of the same coin."

Florida appellate decisions recognize irreparable harm to a business in several situations, Judge Gannam wrote: where damages cannot be quantified, where the business faces total destruction, and where harm recurs so often that "a multiplicity of suits would be required to redress it." The opinion added that the loss of some business, without more, does not qualify.

The record did not fit any of those categories, the panel held. The court acknowledged creditable testimony that Amy Frogley feared Restorical would lose wedding business and, without that revenue, the mansion itself. "But there was no testimony or other evidence of cancelations or lost bookings showing that any loss of business had occurred or was imminent," Judge Gannam wrote.

At the time of the hearing, Restorical was still booking weddings and was not telling customers about the disruptions. One disruption had forced Restorical to partially refund a single wedding fee. The court called that refund calculable and found "no evidence that the need to issue refunds will recur, much less recur in a manner that would result in unquantifiable damages or the total destruction of Restorical's business."

"All told, there was competent, substantial evidence to support a finding that the Hatchers' conduct is a harmful nuisance, but the harm is not self-evidently irreparable, and Restorical did not prove its irreparability," Judge Gannam wrote. The court added that its ruling did not mean Restorical could never prove irreparable harm.

The panel did not reach Judge Deen's conclusion that section 823.16, a statute giving gun ranges certain legal immunities for noise, did not shield the Hatchers because it is unconstitutional. Judge Deen relied on the First District's decision in Gartman v. Southern Tactical Range, which held the statute violated the state constitution's right of access to the courts. The Florida Supreme Court is reviewing Gartman and heard oral argument on May 7, 2026.

In a footnote, the court noted that Judge Deen had allowed the parties to file affidavits or declarations after the hearing. The panel wrote that it "has not decided" that the Florida Evidence Code, which bars affidavits and other hearsay absent an exception, does not apply at a contested temporary-injunction hearing. It left the question open because the Hatchers had not objected on hearsay grounds.

Judge Mize wrote separately to address what the concurrence called "some tension in Florida jurisprudence." Florida courts uniformly hold that harm is irreparable only when money cannot compensate it, the concurrence said, yet some appeals courts, including the Second District, have said the total destruction of a business is enough. "Obviously, the destruction of a business can be compensable by an award of money damages equal to the value of the business," Judge Mize wrote.

Cases holding that a business's destruction is irreparable harm "without any requirement that the value of the business be incalculable," Judge Mize wrote, "must be wrong." Judge Mize concluded that the conflict did not need to be resolved here because Restorical presented no evidence that its business would be destroyed.

Lawyers for the Hatchers included Lindsay C.T. Holt of Crawford, Modica & Holt, Chartered Attorneys at Law. Restorical was represented by Jonathan M. Sykes and Keenan D. Smith of Nardella & Nardella, PLLC.

The Sixth District remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. Its decision is not final until the time to file a motion for rehearing expires and any timely motion is resolved.