ALAN S. RADER, APPELLANT,
v.
MAXINE ROBERTA RADER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's approval of a master's report in a dissolution of marriage proceeding where the trial court failed to obtain or review a record of the master's hearing despite evidence that a court reporter was present. The court held that the husband was entitled to a fair opportunity to present the reporter's record and to a new hearing if the record was unavailable through no fault of his own.
The trial court erred in approving the master's report under these circumstances. When a court reporter was present at the master's hearing and the trial court cannot obtain that record through no fault of the husband, the husband is entitled to a fair opportunity to present that record and, if ultimately unavailable, to a new hearing on the wife's motion.
[1] A trial court errs in approving a general master's report when no adequate record of the evidence presented before the master is available, and the unavailability is not…
[2] When a court reporter was present at a hearing before a general master but the record of the proceedings cannot be obtained through no fault of the party objecting to the…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We believe it was error for the trial court to approve the report under these circumstances.”
Establishes that the trial court's approval of the master's report without obtaining the court reporter's record was reversible error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage case, the wife filed a motion to enforce financial provisions of the final judgment. The matter was referred to a master …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Final Judgment Of Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order approving the report of a general master. The wife initiated the proceedings by filing a motion to enforce several financial provisions of the final judgment of dissolution. The matter was referred to a master. Thereafter the master filed a report recommending that judgment be entered against the husband for a certain sum of money. The husband filed numerous objections to the report including objections to the sufficiency of the evidence received by the master and the procedure followed at the hearing. Thereafter, in a hearing before the trial court the parties agreed that a court reporter had been present before the master but that the identity of the reporter could not be determined. No other record of the evidence received was filed by the master as required by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.490(f).
The husband gave sworn testimony to the court challenging the findings of the master and contended that he was entitled to another hearing on the wife’s motion absent a record upon which the trial court could determine the husband’s objections to the master’s findings.
The trial court overruled the husband’s-objections and entered an order approving the master’s report and granting the wife’s motion to enforce the final judgment. We believe it was error for the trial court to approve the report under these circumstances. Both parties agreed that a court reporter had been present at the hearing. The husband appeared at the hearing without counsel. The wife’s counsel agreed that a reporter was present but could not identify the reporter. Husband’s counsel established that he had made numerous inquiries, without success, of the master, as to the identity of the reporter. No record of evidence was filed with the master’s report.
Moreover, the only evidence presented to the trial court, consisting of the testimony of the husband, supported the husband’s position that the master’s report was contrary to the evidence. This is not a case where one party is unable to present an adequate record for review due to his own fault in not securing a reporter to record the proceedings. The parties agree that'a reporter was present. That being so, the husband is entitled to a fair opportunity to present that record and upon a determination by the trial court that such record is not available through no fault of the husband, the husband is entitled to a new hearing on the wife’s motion.
Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed with directions for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur. DAUKSCH, JAMES C., Jr., Associate Judge, concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Curtin v. Curtin, 492 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…the parties. In our view, the evidence before the court was sufficient to rule. on the two timely-filed exceptions, which are legal in nature. The supplemental exception was untimely and for that reason should have been stricken. Rader v. Rader, 374 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), relied upon by the respondent, is distinguishable. In that case the husband was entitled to a new hearing because not only was the transcript of proceedings unavailable, but additionally the only evidence before the court was th…