MILTON S. MONYEK, APPELLANT,
v.
ARLYNE S. MONYEK, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Exceptions To Master'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order entered in a post judgment marriage dissolution proceeding, which order we interpret to be a final judgment. The order confirms a previously filed report of a general master, subject to timely exceptions; it also enters a “final judgment in the sum of $13,750.00 plus interest at the legal rate from November 24,1983, for which let execution issue.” We are compelled to reverse this final judgment because it was entered on a master’s report without conducting a hearing upon certain exceptions timely filed by Milton S. Monyek, the former husband, and without ruling thereon, as required by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.490(h). See Kay v. Kay, 430 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Beyond that, we find no other error committed below upon this appeal.
The final judgment under review is, therefore, reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to conduct a hearing pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.490(h) on the above-stated exceptions and thereafter to enter an appropriate order thereon.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knorr v. Knorr, 751 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…n part based on due process concerns, the language of the civil procedure rule has been held to be mandatory. See McBride v. McBride, 637 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Berkheimer v. Berkheimer, 466 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Monyek v. Monyek, 453 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). In this case, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by holding Mr. Knorr in contempt without first conducting a hearing on his exceptions to the special master’s report and recommendation. Accordingly,…
-
Ellett v. Ellett, 546 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…1.490(h) to require a mandatory hearing before the trial court on the parties’ exceptions if one is requested. See Fonte v. Alvarez, 491 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Berkheimer v. Berkheimer, 466 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Monyek v. Monyek, 453 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984); Wyman v. Wyman, 430 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Kay v. Kay, 430 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The hearing requirement in the general and special master context is mandatory “[i]n order to protect a party’s right to be ulti…
-
Martinez v. Garcia, 575 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…er the circumstances. Finally, the father contends that the trial court was obliged to conduct a hearing on the timely filed exceptions. On [*1367] that point the father is correct. The Rule so provides. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.490(h); see Monyek v. Monyek, 453 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Ordinarily we would reverse and remand for the conducting of the hearing. However, on this appeal we have disposed of the legal issues raised by the father. The only remaining contention is that the evidence does not support the…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- KAY v. KAY, 430 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)