Representative Image (AI-generated)
Dispute over wedding ceremonies at historic Florida mansion
The Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal addressed the dispute in its October 30, 2026, decision in Brad Hatcher and Audrey Hatcher v. The alleged disturbances had occurred occasionally before 2025, according to the court’s account. Restorical alleged that the situation became more serious in 2025, when the neighbours repeatedly engaged in noisy activities during scheduled weddings. It also required Restorical to provide them with written notice at least 24 hours before each event.
Restorical, LLC, doing business as Sydonie Mansion. The ruling , available on Justia, overturned a temporary injunction that had restricted the neighbours’ conduct during weddings and other events. The appeals court found that although there was evidence supporting a harmful nuisance claim, the venue had not sufficiently demonstrated that it would suffer irreparable harm without the restrictions. These included playing loud music through speakers directed towards the mansion and allowing dogs to roam freely onto the venue’s grounds. These reportedly included rapid gunfire, revving chainsaw and airboat engines, operating chainsaws and releasing dogs. The company argued that the timing of these activities disrupted ceremonies and affected the atmosphere expected by couples and their guests. It subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Hatchers, including a private nuisance claim, and sought a temporary injunction to prevent further disturbances. Following an evidentiary hearing at which both sides presented testimony, the trial court granted Restorical’s request for a temporary injunction. The lower court found that the neighbours’ alleged conduct had caused continuing disruption to the wedding business and threatened the venue’s goodwill and long-term viability. It also concluded that the resulting harm could not be adequately addressed through monetary damages. The injunction prohibited the Hatchers from disrupting the venue’s scheduled events.
The neighbours challenged the order before the Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal, arguing against the restrictions imposed on their property-related activities.