CATHERINE A. REECE, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM K. REECE, JR., 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.
In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the trial court reduced child support from $700 to $500 per month, departing from a general master's recommendation without hearing exceptions or allowing the parties to be heard. The appellate court reversed, holding that such departure without clear error and without notice and hearing violates principles of appellate review and due process.
The trial court abused its discretion by reducing child support below the master's recommendation without clear error and without providing notice and hearing to the parties. The master's findings and recommendations may not be rejected absent clear error, and departure should be accompanied by notice and opportunity to be heard.
[1] A trial court may not reject a general master's findings of fact and conclusions of law in the absence of clear error.
[2] The trial court's review of a general master's findings and determinations is analogous to an appellate court's review of a trial court's findings and determinations.
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“The findings of fact and conclusions drawn therefrom may not be rejected by the trial court in the absence of clear error.”
Establishes the standard of review for a trial court's evaluation of a master's findings—requiring clear error before rejection
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 proceeding, the parties submitted requests for temporary support with financial affidavits. A general master conducted a …
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 Temporary Support cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Judge.
The trial court, in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, referred the matter of temporary support to a general master. Each of the parties filed a request for temporary support and a financial affidavit. After a hearing the general master made findings of fact and recommendations. Neither party filed exceptions. The trial court, without hearing, reduced the amount of child support from $700.00 per month, recommended by the general master, to $500.00 per month. The wife appeals.
Customarily a master makes findings of fact, draws conclusions from those findings based upon applicable law, and makes recommendations to the trial court.
The findings of fact and conclusions drawn therefrom may not be rejected by the trial court in the absence of clear error. To put it another way, the role of the trial court in reviewing the findings and determinations of the master are similar to those of the appellate court in reviewing a trial court’s findings and determinations. Harmon v. Harmon, 40 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1949); Matos v. Matos, 421 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). This rule is subject to the observation that it is the trial judge “who under the law is charged with the duty and responsibility of making findings of facts and entering the final decree.” U.S. Casualty Co. v. Md. Casualty Co., 55 So. 2d 741, 744 (Fla.1951). It is also recognized that the trial court may come to different legal conclusions than the master, based upon the master’s findings of fact, without committing reversible error. Bergh v. Bergh, 127 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 133 So. 2d 323 (Fla.1961).
In this case there were no exceptions to the master’s findings and the trial court did not have a transcript of the hearing before the master for guidance in evaluating the master’s report. Our. examination of the report discloses no basis for a determination that any of the master’s findings, conclusions, or recommendations were clearly erroneous. Under the circumstances we conclude that the trial court abused his discretion in reducing the amount of child support. Dent v. Dent, 438 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
Because we need not, we do not decide whether the trial court must provide a hearing before departing from the recommendations contained in a master’s report. Rule 1.490(h), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the filing of exceptions to the master’s report and requires a hearing where exceptions are filed. It would be anomalous if, in the absence of exceptions as here, the trial court could ex parte accomplish what, had an exception been filed, could only result after notice and hearing. It would be judicious for the trial court under such circumstances to permit the parties to be heard after reasonable notice where departure from the master’s recommendations is contemplated.
We reverse the order of temporary support and remand to the trial court with instructions to enter an order based upon the recommendations of the general master. REVERSED and REMANDED.
ANSTEAD, C.J., concurs.
LETTS, J., concurs specially.
LETTS, Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in conclusion only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
de Clements v. de Clements, 662 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…he legal effect of the evidence presented. Mahan v. Mahan, 88 So. 2d 545 (Fla.1956); Kersh v. Kersh, 613 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Reali v. Velocci, 563 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), review denied, 576 So. 2d 294 (Fla.1991); Reece v. Reece, 449 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Landis v. Landis, 486 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Ben-Hain, 418 So. 2d at 1108; Sitomer v. Sitomer, 397 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Hemminger v. Hemminger, 391 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), review denied, 399 So. 2d 1143…
-
Anderson v. Anderson, 736 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…te standard of review from a master’s report is a limited review. Instead of comparing the master with an arbitrator, however, it compares the role of the reviewing trial judge with that of an appellate court: As this court noted in Reece v. Reece, 449 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), “the role of the trial court in reviewing the findings and determinations of the master are similar to those of the appellate court in reviewing a trial court’s findings and determinations.” Because the special master’s findings…
-
Saario v. Tiller, 333 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- US Cas. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co., 55 So.2d 741 (Fla. 1951)
- Harmon v. Harmon, 40 So.2d 209 (Fla. 1949)
- Bergh v. Bergh, 127 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Allie Pittman v. Mehaffey, 127 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Dent v. Dent, 438 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Matos v. Otsenre E. Matos, 421 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Bergh v. Bergh, 133 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1961)