BARRY RICHARD MANN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY JUNE MANN, 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 court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the main appeal but reversed on the cross-appeal, holding that the trial court improperly modified the special master's finding regarding rehabilitative alimony and must restore the award of seven years at $630 per month.
A trial court may not modify a special master's findings unless it determines the findings are clearly erroneous or the special master misconceived the legal effect of the evidence.
[1] A trial court may not modify findings made by a court-appointed special master unless the trial court finds the findings clearly erroneous or that the special master misc…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a divorce proceeding, a special master was appointed to hear testimony and recommended that the wife receive seven years of rehabilitative alimony …
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 Special Master Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment as amended upon rehearing is affirmed upon the main appeal herein, Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Leonard v. Leonard, 389 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Said judgment as amended is, however, reversed upon the cross appeal herein and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to restore the provision of the final judgment (modified upon rehearing) awarding the appellee wife seven (7) years of rehabilitative alimony at $630 per month.
The trial court, in our view, improperly modified on rehearing the findings of the special master appointed by the trial court herein to hear the testimony in this cause. Among the findings made by the special master in his report to the trial court was a finding that the appellee wife be awarded not less than seven (7) years of rehabilitative alimony at $630 per month. At first, the trial court accepted this finding and awarded the appellee wife seven (7) years of rehabilitative alimony at $630 per month in the final judgment; upon rehearing, however, that provision was modified to reduce the term of rehabilitative alimony from seven (7) years to three and one-half (3V2) years. In our view, this was a special master finding, not a recommendation as the trial court saw it, and could not be modified unless the trial court found, as it concededly did not in this case, that said special master's finding was clearly erroneous or that the special master had misconceived the legal effect of the evidence. Shaw v. Shaw, 369 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bloom v. Bloom, 414 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…record evidence. We agree. The findings of fact and recommendations of a master should be approved and adopted by a trial judge unless clearly erroneous, or it appears that the master has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence. Mann v. Mann, 399 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Shaw v. Shaw, 369 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Claughton v. Claughton, 347 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Kalmutz v. Kalmutz, 299 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). In our view, the trial court abused its discretion by rejecting cer…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Trotter v. State, 369 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Leonard v. Leonard, 389 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)