Update: The 5th District Court of Appeal on Jan. 30 briefly granted a stay of the trial court’s judgment, then denied the stay pending arguments and a decision by the 5th DCA. In-person services at Coastal Family Church have stopped. See the more recent article, “Appeals Court Will Decide if Flagler Beach Shopping Center Can Legally Ban Coastal Family Church Services.”
Liberty Counsel, the Orlando-based conservative Christian organization, has filed an appeal on behalf of Coastal Family Church in Flagler Beach after a judge last week barred the church from using its space at Flagler Square for large assemblies, including church services.
Liberty Counsel filed the appeal at the Fifth District Court of Appeal on behalf of Roderick Palmer, better known locally as Pastor Rod, who owns the church, seeking an immediate stay and reversal of the judge’s injunction.
The injunction “is an unconstitutional restriction on the First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, and religious exercise,” Liberty Counsel argues in a statement on its website issued yesterday, “and violates Florida law by preventing the church from using its own property to gather and worship.
The case at first blush appears to be a stunning abridgement of the right of assembly. It is, in fact, a more prosaic case of private-property covenants and contract law, and of very common covenant restrictions that typically apply and are complied with in many strip and other malls. One of those covenants at Flagler Square forbids spaces from being used for large assemblies or churches, regardless of the owner of the property.
Coastal Family Church acknowledges that the covenant is in place. It argues that “the covenant is ambiguous, selectively enforced, and unlawful under both state and federal law.”
Last Thursday, Circuit Judge Sandra Upchurch granted Flagler Square’s temporary injunction, prompting Liberty Counsel’s appeal.
The judge, in a plainspoken but unambiguous order that reflects the cut-and-dried language of contract law, noted that the church organization “was on constructive, specific and direct notice that public assemblies were not permissible.” The judge ruled that “it is undisputed that the covenant runs with the land, that public assemblies are prohibited and [Coastal Church] is hosting public assemblies.”
The judge also predicted that Flagler Square likely will prevail on the merits of the lawsuit, a signal that she will side with Flagler Square in her final ruling.
“Until the resolution of this case,” the judge ruled, Coastal Church is forbidden “effective immediately from utilizing Unit 1 as a place of public assembly and is prohibited from allowing public assemblies put on by any entity to occur there. [The church] may elect to allow the property to be used for administrative purposes or for office space so long as the restrictive covenants are being followed. Also [effective] immediately, [the church] is enjoined from proceeding with any construction or modification to Unit 1 [] which would facilitate public assemblies.”
Upchurch also denied Palmer’s motion to dismiss the Flagler Square lawsuit.
The case is not complicated.
Last July, Palmer bought what used to be Badcock Furniture in Flagler Beach’s Flagler Square for $1.875 million, as a trustee of the 2501 Moody Boulevard Land Trust. Coastal Family Church had held an event there at the 19,000-square-foot space months before.
Flagler Square is operated as a condominium organized by, among others, Flagler Square-Jax, a Delray Beach company operating since 2002. Flagler Square-Jax owns all the other retail units at the shopping center, including the 11,700-square-foot unit, a Dollar Tree, adjacent to Coastal Family Church.
Flagler Square is controlled by covenants, or “declarations.” “All provisions of the Declaration shall be construed to be perpetual covenants running with the Land,” the declaration states, meaning that even if a unit is sold, the conditions still apply. One of the conditions that apply to the space Palmer bought is that it may not be used as a “banquet hall, auditorium or other place of public assembly,” such as a church.
It’s a common condition attached to strip malls, because, a real estate broker noted to Coastal Church officials in November 2024, “Aside from the parking nightmare that a house of worship cause [sic], it creates a dark hole in the center, as it brings no conducive retail traffic to a center.” To Flagler Square, the church knew, going in, that restrictions on the use of the space applied.
In late August, Flagler Square sued Palmer and the land trust he represents. “There is no question its intended use of Unit 1 as a church or to conduct church services or related type uses, falls within the definition of the public assembly,” the suit claims, citing Flagler County’s own land use definitions, which include churches as places of assembly.
The church itself submitted a building permit application to Flagler Beach in August, describing intended interior alterations “from retail to church.” The Flagler Beach Fire Department reported that the space had a capacity for 2,401 people, including 1,873 in the front room, the rest in two back rooms.
“Significantly,” the lawsuit states, “the Defendant was aware at all times that the real property in question, specifically Unit 1, could not be utilized as a place of public assembly, including specifically could not be utilized as a church, whereby hundreds and thousands of people (based on the Defendant’s own Floor Plan submitted to the City of Flagler Beach) would attend the church services at the same time, the very definition of a place of public assembly.”
The church would “overwhelm” the 315 parking spaces available for other businesses, Flagler Square argues in its lawsuit, impeding parking for other shoppers, affecting Phase II of the shopping center’s development, discouraging any national tenant from leasing, and would “significantly and materially diminish the value of the Shopping Center as well as the ability to finance the Shopping Center at all times moving forward.”
Palmer did not buy the old Badcock space from Flagler Square but from a previous owner called Young & Pate, which had leased the space to the furniture store. When Young & Pate signed a sale contract, the contract was assigned to Coastal Community Church, the non-profit Palmer owns and operates as Coastal Family Church. Even so, YP’s counsel had advised Palmer’s organization against using the space for large gatherings, and cautioned in an email against it after learning that the church organization had held a fundraiser there in March, with a gathering of some 400 people.
On April 11, an attorney representing YP made it explicit to Palmer himself, along with an associate, Zander Burger: “Please be advised and understand,” Mark Turner, the attorney, wrote, “that you are not authorized by my client to conduct any meetings or assemblies that in any way constitute or arguably constitute violations of the use restrictions for which you have been previously provided and are fully aware of, and further that if you disregard this request to cease and desist any arguable activities that could be interpreted or argued as use restriction violations, my client will hold you accountable and pursue appropriate legal proceedings, as may be required to protect its interest and specifically will pursue action should any legal proceedings be initiated by Flagler Square seeking any kind of damage or liability assessment based upon your activities in the subject property prior to closing.”
It is precisely such legal proceedings that Flagler Square initiated. The company sought an injunction against the church, stopping it from using the space as a church.” It is inconceivable and legally impermissible to think the [church] can purchase Unit 1 and completely ignore the specific restrictions set forth in the Declaration that have been in place since the inception and creation of the Condominium,” the injunction count states.
The company was also seeking a declaratory judgment–in essence for the judge to state explicitly in an order that Palmer’s organization may not use the space as a church.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Liberty Counsel “bills itself as a non-profit litigation, education and policy organization that provides legal counsel and pro bono assistance in cases dealing with religious liberty, ‘the sanctity of human life’ and the family.” It has 10 attorneys and 300 volunteers.
SPLC designates Liberty Counsel as a hate group for its anti-LGBT militancy. “With the expansion of equal rights for LGBT people, especially,” SPLC states, “the Liberty Counsel has come into their own, working to attempt to ensure that Christians can continue to engage in anti-LGBT discrimination in places of business under the guise of “religious liberty.” Through lawsuits and its annual Awakening conference in Orlando, the Counsel attempts to enforce the idea that Christian beliefs and law trump all other law.”
NJ says
Flagler County does NOT want a “HATE CHURCH”! Just go NOW!!!
Lisa M Gardella says
Coastal is not a hate church. I personally love Flagler Live and am disappointed that they did not attempt to get a different viewpoint from the other side of the issue, before stating as fact things that are very much being disputed. Regardless, Coastal is a loving and accepting environment, NON political and values every human as precious in God’s sight. God bless you and I agree that no one wants a hate church.
GW says
Maybe the church should go next door to Dollar Tree and buy a high school law book.
Atwp says
From my understanding of the article, the contract is very clear, no public assembly. I’m not a lawyer but that part of the contract is very clear. We will see what happens.
Pogo says
@Just waiting
… for DeSantis, and big orange daddy, to announce we are all citizens of Jerusalem.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Jerusalem
Mr.David says
I’ve always thought that would be a great location for indoor go karts, mini golf, arcade. Family fun center. Perfect for when the afternoon storms clear everyone off the beach.
James Smithton says
Under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
Private property covenants generally cannot be enforced to exclude religious assemblies if such enforcement involves state action, such as court enforcement of a restrictive covenant, as this may violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by imposing a “substantial burden” on religious exercise without a compelling government interest. RLUIPA prohibits government actions, including judicial enforcement of private agreements, from discriminating against religious institutions.
I have successfully litigated other instances of this and the comments below more fully explain what’s going on here. This is NOT a hate church, it is a Church that is wholly evanglical but that is not the issue. You cannot exclude house of worship from a property that is properly zoned for such usage. In addition, you can’t zone out house of worship because you are trying to unfairly discriminate against said house.
Falgler Center will lose this case ultimately and the local Judge is in grave error and should be reprimanded or go back to law school.
john stove says
James Smithon:
An existing strip mall can legally preclude a church from being a tenant, often by using restrictive covenants in property deeds or condominium declarations that forbid “places of worship,” “public assemblies,” or non-retail uses. While religious organizations have protections against discrimination, courts have upheld that private property agreements can prohibit church activities in commercial spaces.
Here is a breakdown of how a strip mall can restrict a church:
1. Restrictive Covenants and Bylaws
Condominium associations or management companies that control a strip mall often have governing documents, known as “covenants, conditions, and restrictions” (CC&Rs) or “condominium declarations”.
Use Restrictions: These documents may state that units can only be used for “retail” or “commercial” purposes, which typically excludes churches.
Public Assembly Bans: Covenants may forbid “public assemblies,” “large gatherings,” or “churches” entirely, a restriction that runs with the land and binds any owner.
Robert Ziel says
Appeals Court Rules Coastal Family Church Can Resume Church Services
Jan 30, 2026
Today, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal granted an emergency motion allowing Coastal Family Church in Flagler Beach to resume church services after a lower court injunction barred the church from using its own property. The church had been closed for worship services Sunday, January 25 after the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court prohibited it from holding in-person worship services amid a legal dispute. Liberty Counsel filed the emergency motion Wednesday.
The Fifth District Court order staying the injunction states that if the temporary injunction “was erroneously issued,” then the “legal and actual harm” from barring the religious free exercise of congregants with sincerely held religious beliefs “would be grievous and reach constitutional dimension.”
Check zoning says
A little known fact…….
That complex is the only location in Flagler that is zoned to allow gentlemen dance club. So be careful what you wish for as that would have to be approved
John Stove says
Gee….who would have thought that a clear contractual condition on the use of the property was made clear to the church and now the church is crying over it? Enough with your BS….you knew that you couldnt use it as a church.
Take your carnival side show off to an empty field somewhere and buy a few tents…..
Jennifer says
They just wanted a space to worship God, Yahweh, Adonai in peace and harmony. It sounds like a witch hunt for a growing church that is obviously angering the devil so much, that he gathered vengeful people together to shutdown somewhere where God is clearly moving. No matter. Believers will keep gathering together, they will keep praying, they will keep worshiping, they will keep studying God’s Word and they will keep upholding the Commandments that God gave at the beginning of time. You took their building away. Ok and? Jesus ministered outdoors in Israel and travelled all over that country that is four millennia years old. Then believers will gather together outside or someone else’s houses. Honestly the fact that this was close to home disappoints me cause clearly the community is being led astray and going downhill. Sure you won one battle, but spoiler alert: God wins the war. You will not win, to those of you who closed down a place of worship for God. He knows what you did. I’ll be praying for the Coastal Church congregation and hope they find a new home where evil cannot shut them down. After all evil and the devil are obliterated in the end.
MM says
Where does this ‘church’ get it’s income from? “Worshipers” give money to them, lol. It’s all a scam, as all churches are. They are just looking for somewhere to draw the suckers in and give them money.
Robert Ziel says
For the most part FlaglerLive provides an accurate timeline and summary of the events leading up to the injunction. What is disappointing is the last paragraph that clearly attempts to discredit Liberty Counsel by presenting opinions by SPLC, not facts.
Allegations of “hate group” and “anti-LGBT discrimination” are both false and not relevant to the focus of this article.
– Robert Ziel (Palm Coast)
Skibum says
The “anti LGBT” designation by the SPLC may not be relevant in your estimation, but i surely is relevant for me. During my time in law enforcement when I was responsible for conducting various types of investigations for the State of WA, I received advanced training on gangs and hate groups in the U.S. It was suggested to us investigators to subscribe to the monthly SPLC publication, which I did subscribe to for several years.
My person experience with the information that SPLC published for law enforcement on all of the many garden variety hate groups that SPLC tracked on a regular basis, not only identifying the type of hate group but also providing documented evidence of each groups activities that resulted in their group being put on a list of identified hate groups, was that SPLC staff were extremely thorough, diligent and accurate in their assessment opinions. I am far more apt to rely on their word than one individual commenter disagrees with the information they have been providing on designated hate groups for many, many years.
ROBERT LISTER says
I have been following this case and have read the majority of documents submitted to the court in this particular case. There were restrictive covenants that “run with the land” that were recorded by the original mall / property owner with the County PRIOR to this church and its officials ever viewing this retail property for sale. There were also prohibited uses in a pre-existing lease/contract with the Dollar Tree store that specifically prohibited any future owners / tenants of this retail property from using ANY portion of the property as a health club, skating rink, hotel, theater, banquet hall, OR OTHER PLACE OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY. One would logically assume that this includes using the property as a place of worship.
The church pastor / officials apparently hired a real estate agent to assist with the possibility of the church purchasing the retail mall condo unit formerly occupied by a furniture store. That real estate agent was formally notified of these restrictive covenants. The church officials apparently chose to disregard / ignore these covenants and move forward with the purchase. During the MONTHS prior to the actual purchase, the church officials were legally notified on several occasions of these issue yet they continued to ignore those warnings.
To add insult to injury, the church held some sort of assembly with 400 participants shortly prior to the actual purchase and were ONCE AGAIN legally informed that their intended use of the property as a place of worship was in violation of the retrictive covenants and Dollar Tree Lease. Despite ALL these warnings, the church moved forward with the final purchase of the property which included an expensive renovation of their new space and then began holding weekly worship services.
Now that a lawsuit has been initiated, the church wants to claim that they are being religilously discriminated against by the other unit owner(s). They also are trying to claim that the Fraternal Order of Police (one of the other tenants) was already using their space as a place of assembly so that fact set a precedent. The actual fact of the matter is that the F.O.P became a tenant PRIOR to the mall owner drafting and recording the restrictive covenants.
The reality is that this is a privately owed RETAIL mall. The church’s continuing attempts to disregard that fact along with the restrictive covenants and the Dollar Tree lease agreement is simply wrong in my opinion. The judge’s decision to grant a temporary injunction was completely justified and allowable by case law. A retail mall should simply be limited to retail tenants. (Disclaimer – The previously mentioned facts are my personal interpretation of the case documents that I reviewed however, I am NOT an attorney nor is this a formal legal analysis)
Skibum says
I agree. The other pertinent fact about the unauthorized, 400 or so person church gathering that occurred in that vacant building is that there is not sufficient parking in that entire strip mall parking lot to accommodate a large church in addition to the existing businesses. That fact is part of the lawsuit and is listed as one of the justifications for putting the no public assembly requirement in writing in the first place, because it would have a very detrimental affect on the other businesses if customers could not find an open parking spot due to a large number of vehicles taking up all or most of the parking lot for a church service.
James Smithon’s comment above seems to suggest that the Religious Land Use act trumps everything else and requires all private property owners to bow down to churches who want to obtain land or a building for church, and pre-existing land covenants prohibiting such use will always lose in court. I think that is a laughable, and false interpretation of whatever “law” he is citing. Otherwise, no privately owned land in the entire nation would be able to prevent some random church from taking over a vacant building in commercially owned mall or business area, whether the land owner was agreeable to it or not.
ROBERT LISTER says
Exactly right Skibum. This church is simply trying to use “freedom of religion” as a golden key to do whatever they please and that is NOT going to work…at least not in this case. They should have taken their funds, purchased a private property somewhere affordable, and built a new facility with a parking lot large enough to support their needs. Personally, I find it quite disturbing that so-called “Christians” would attempt to pull a stunt like this while completely ignoring the needs and rights of the other retail tenants. So much for “brotherly love” and “help thy neighbor”.
Wow says
Wait until someone wants a masjid there. I’m sure the “religious” right will have no problem with it??