LEWIS WILLIAM REICHMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
CAROL SANDRA REICHMAN, 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 this divorce modification case, the trial court rejected a general master's recommendation that neither party demonstrated sufficient change of circumstances to warrant modification of alimony and child support orders. The appellate court reversed, holding that the master's findings were supported by competent evidence and the trial court improperly substituted its judgment for the master's on matters of fact resolution.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, holding that the master's findings were supported by competent evidence and that the trial court was bound by those findings unless they were clearly erroneous or the master had misconceived the legal effect of the evidence. The court determined that the evidence was conflicting and it was the master's function as trier of fact to resolve those conflicts.
[1] A trial court must approve and adopt the findings and recommendations of a master unless they are clearly erroneous or the master has misconceived the legal effect of the…
[2] A trial court is bound by a master's findings if those findings are supported by competent evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 recommendations of a master should be approved and adopted by the trial judge unless they are clearly erroneous or the master has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence.”
Establishes the standard of review for master's findings and the trial court's obligation to respect those findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Reichmans were divorced in 1979 with a final judgment ordering Dr. Reichman to pay Mrs. Reichman $1500 monthly rehabilitative alimony for four yea…
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
BASKIN, Judge.
The Reichmans were divorced in 1979. In its Final Judgment the court ordered Dr. Reichman to pay Mrs. Reichman $1500 a month rehabilitative alimony for four years followed by child support payments of $125 a week to each child until that child reaches 18 years of age. Subsequently, both parties sought modification. The wife sought either permanent alimony or an extended period of rehabilitative alimony and separate child support; the husband sought termination of rehabilitative alimony.
The trial court referred the matter to a general master. The master conducted two hearings and submitted a report in which he found that neither party had demonstrated a change of circumstances sufficient to warrant modification.
With regard to the wife’s petition for modification, the trial court disagreed with the general master and determined that there was no evidence •to support the master’s findings.
Accordingly, the court changed the rehabilitative alimony to permanent alimony and ordered the husband to pay child support.
We reverse.
The findings of fact and recommendations of a master should be approved and adopted by the trial judge unless they are clearly erroneous or the master has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence. See Shaw v. Shaw, 369 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
The trial court is bound by the master’s findings if they are supported by competent evidence. Dent v. Dent, 438 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We have reviewed the record and have determined that the evidence before the master was conflicting. The master resolved conflicts in the evidence in favor of the husband. Because it is the function of the trier of fact, here the master, to resolve conflicts in testimony, Ciccarelli v. Ciccarelli, 352 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), and because no evidence demonstrates that Mrs. Reichman was permanently disabled by her physical ailments, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the wife’s exceptions to the general master’s report.
Reversed.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant’s motion for rehearing calls to our attention that the opinion of this court filed on May 8, 1984, failed to address appellant’s appeal from a final judgment for attorney’s fees and costs (Case No. 83-2998). He correctly points out that because our reversal of the order awarding permanent alimony to the wife may affect the appropriateness of the amount of fees awarded to the wife’s attorney, the judgment awarding fees should be revisited.
Accordingly, the motion for rehearing is granted, and the final judgment for attorney’s fees and costs appealed in Case No. 83-2998 is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further consideration of the attorney’s fee award in light of our reversal of the orders appealed in Case Nos. 83-2358 and 83-2361. The appellee’s motion for rehearing is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goldman v. Smargon, 524 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…shows that the master’s determination was supported by competent evidence and was surely not “clearly erroneous,” as is required to justify a departure from his decision. Bragassa v. Bragassa, 505 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Reichman v. Reichman, 450 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review denied, 459 So. 2d 1041 (Fla.1984); Matos v. Matos, 421 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). 2. The lower court also erred in failing to award the wife attorney’s fees for the necessary defense of the husband’s repetitive,…
-
Nivia Lascaibar v. Lascaibar, 156 So. 3d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…Cerase v. Dewhurst, 935 So. 2d 575, 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Carls, 890 So. 2d at 1138; Garcia v. Garcia, 743 So. 2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); De Clements v. De Clements, 662 So. 2d 1276, 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (en banc); Reichman v. Reichman, 450 So. 2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We find that the general magistrate’s recommendations are clearly erroneous, as the Mother was entitled to prejudgment interest in accordance with the April 2010 order. The trial court therefore abused its discretion when…
-
Cerase v. Frederic R. Dewhurst, 935 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…So. 2d 9, 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (trial court is bound by the general master’s factual findings when supported by competent evidence, and must uphold the master’s findings unless he misconceived the legal effect of the evidence); Reichman v. Reichman, 450 So. 2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (“The findings of fact and recommendations of a master should be approved and adopted by the trial judge unless they are clearly erroneous or the master has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence.”). Rather than revi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dent v. Dent, 438 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Trotter v. State, 369 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Ciccarelli v. Ciccarelli, 352 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)