Background
Restorical owns the historic Sydonie Mansion in Mount Dora, where it has hosted weddings and other events for about nine years. Its owners live at the mansion. Brad and Audrey Hatcher live next door and keep dogs, boats, motor vehicles, and a shooting range on their property.
Restorical alleged that the Hatchers increasingly disrupted weddings in 2025 by timing gunfire, engine revving, chainsaw use, airboat operation, loud music, and loose dogs to coincide with ceremonies. The circuit court entered a temporary injunction barring the Hatchers from disrupting scheduled events, while requiring Restorical to give them 24 hours’ written notice of events.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District reversed the temporary injunction because Restorical did not present competent, substantial evidence that it would suffer irreparable harm or lacked an adequate remedy at law without immediate injunctive relief. Those requirements turn on whether the claimed injury can be compensated with money damages.
Although the record supported a finding that the alleged conduct was harmful and could constitute a nuisance, Restorical offered no evidence of canceled events, lost bookings, imminent business loss, or why damages could not be calculated from its nine-year operating history. One partial wedding-fee refund was calculable, and there was no evidence that refunds would recur in a way that made damages unquantifiable or would destroy the business. The court therefore reversed and remanded without reaching the merits or the gun-range-immunity issue.
Key Takeaways
- A temporary injunction requires proof of likely irreparable harm and no adequate legal remedy.
- Disruption and possible loss of business, standing alone, do not establish irreparable harm.
- A business seeking emergency relief should present evidence that losses are unquantifiable, recurrent in a manner requiring multiple suits, or otherwise not compensable by damages.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that courts may not presume irreparable harm from alleged interference with an established business. Even where evidence supports a nuisance claim, the movant must separately prove that ordinary damages cannot adequately remedy the likely injury.