LEONARD WOOLFSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ALYNN ROSE, 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.
A former husband appealed a trial court's reservation of jurisdiction to award attorneys' fees and costs to his ex-wife, arguing the court lacked power to do so after a master's report addressed only child support. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that a trial court may reserve jurisdiction to award fees and costs even when a master's report did not address them and the ex-wife failed to file exceptions to the master's report.
The trial court had the power to reserve jurisdiction to award attorneys' fees and costs. A wife's failure to file exceptions to a master's report on an issue does not preclude the trial court from granting appropriate relief on that issue, and the trial court's reservation of jurisdiction to determine fees and costs at a future date with proper notice and hearing does not usurp the master's role or violate due process.
[1] A trial court is not precluded from awarding attorneys' fees and costs, even in the absence of exceptions to a master's report that did not address the issue.
[2] A trial court's duty to examine a master's report and determine the appropriateness of the recommended decree is not diminished by the absence of exceptions to the report…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“even in the absence of exceptions to the special master's report it is 'the duty of the court to examine and carefully consider the evidence and determine whether under the law and the facts the court is justified in entering the decree recommended by the Master.'”
Establishes that a trial court's duty to review a master's report exists regardless of whether exceptions are filed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court referred the former wife's petition for increased child support and a related request for attorneys' fees and costs to a general maste…
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 General Master'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
The sole point on this appeal which merits discussion is the former husband’s contention that where the trial court had referred the former wife’s petition for increased child support, including a related request for attorneys’ fees and costs, to a general master whose report to the court addressed the issue of child support only, and where the wife's exceptions to the report did not allege as error the failure of the master to consider or reserve jurisdiction to consider the wife’s request for fees and costs, the trial court, in ruling favorably on the wife’s exceptions, was not empowered to reserve jurisdiction to make a later award of attorneys’ fees and costs to the wife.
Assuming, arguendo, that the master’s silence on the issue of attorneys’ fees and costs could be considered to be a ruling thereon, it is clear that the wife’s failure to file an exception to this “ruling” does not preclude the trial court from according the wife such relief as the trial court deems appropriate. Slatcoff v. Dezen, 74 So. 2d 59, 60 (Fla.1954) (“[E]ven in the absence of exceptions to the special master’s report it is ‘the duty of the court to examine and carefully consider the evidence and determine whether under the law and the facts the court is justified in entering the decree recommended by the Master.’ ”) (quoting Lyon v. Lyon, 54 So. 2d 679, 680 (Fla.1951)); McMullen v. McMullen, 68 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1953) (reversing because of insufficient evidence the court’s entry of final decree of divorce, notwithstanding lack of exceptions to master’s report recommending entry of decree); Bell v. Bell, 307 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
See also Ben-Hain v. Tacher, 418 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Florida’s rules and statutes providing for the filing of exceptions to the master’s report, however worded, have never been construed “to mean that, in the absence of exceptions, the entry of a final decree by the court in accordance with the findings and recommendations of the Master becomes a mere formality.” Lyon v. Lyon, 54 So. 2d at 680.1
Moreover, despite appellant's suggestion to the contrary, this is not a case where the trial court’s reservation of jurisdiction to award attorneys’ fees usurped the master’s fact-finding role or failed to pay due deference to facts found by the master. The master did not find that the wife was disentitled to attorneys’ fees and costs; indeed, he found nothing on this issue. Nor did the trial court's order determine a matter which was not the subject of appropriate notice and pleadings so that it could be said to have denied the appellant due process, cf. Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 446 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); instead, the trial court merely reserved jurisdiction to determine in the future, presumably upon appropriate notice and after adequate hearing, the wife’s entitlement vel non to fees and costs.
Finally, this is not a case where the trial court can be said to have lost jurisdiction to award attorneys’ fees and costs because of its failure to reserve or retain such jurisdiction. Cf. Maney v. Maney, 413 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Berlin v. Berlin, 395 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 402 So. 2d 607 (Fla.1981); Oyer v. Boyer, 383 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Frumkes v. Frumkes, 328 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). It was the master who did not reserve jurisdiction, and his failure to do so, preceding as it did the entry of a final judgment, is inconsequential.
Affirmed.
. Indeed, the rule and statute in existence when Lyon was decided provided that "[i]f no exceptions are filed within the said period [ten days] by either party, the report shall be confirmed by order of the court or in or by the final decree." Lyon v. Lyon, 54 So. 2d at 680 (emphasis supplied). A less stringent rule which provided that in the absence of exceptions "the court shall take such action on the report as may be appropriate" was adopted in 1954. Slatcoff v. Dezen, 74 So. 2d at 60. The rule controlling the case at bar, similar to its 1954 predecessor, provides that "[i]f no exceptions are filed within the period [ten days], the court shall take appropriate action on the report." Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.490(h).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
de Clements v. de Clements, 662 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…findings and recommendations of the master are justified prior to entry of a final judgment in accordance with the master’s report.” Ben-Hain, 418 So. 2d at 1108 (emphasis added); accord Lyon v. Lyon, 54 So. 2d 679, 680 (Fla.1951); Woolfson v. Rose, 448 So. 2d 1176, 1177-78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). As we previously stated in Bell v. Bell, 307 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975): We fully realize that ... the trial dockets are often unusually congested due to a tremendous volume of litigation. We also realize that such c…
-
McNAMARA v. McNAMARA, 988 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…llenge and not on the services anticipated to take the case to trial. The trial court may make a factual determination without holding further hearings if there is sufficient evidence in the record to make findings of fact and law. Woolfson v. Rose, 448 So. 2d 1176, 1177-78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). There was ample evidence for the court to make the additional findings for an award of temporary fees and costs for the additional services the Wife’s attorney anticipated. The court did not reverse the general magistrat…
-
Gaudiosi v. Gaudiosi, 476 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…e matters. Moreover, the initial petition for divorce requested attorney’s fees and the trial court did not have to specifically retain jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees in the interim order. Although not directly on point, in Woolfson v. Rose, 448 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the trial court referred the wife’s petition for child support and attorney’s fees to a general master. When the master failed to rule on attorney’s fees, the appellate court held that the trial court did not lose its jurisdictio…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Melvyn B. Frumkes v. Frumkes, 328 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Slatcoff v. Dezen, 74 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1954)
- Perez v. State, 418 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Lyon v. Lyon, 54 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1951)
- Oyer v. Boyer, 383 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Bell v. Bell, 307 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Stanley v. State, 395 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Maney v. Maney, 413 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Gonzalez v. Erwin Gonzalez, 446 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)