GRACE MARRIAN CATINELLA, N/K/A GRACE M. PEREYRA, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTHONY RICHARD CATINELLA, 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 trial court erred in sustaining exceptions to a general master's report without record evidence and in modifying support obligations not raised by the parties.
The trial court sustained exceptions to a general master's report without record evidence and modified support obligations that were not raised by the…
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 Modification Of Support Obligations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the order appealed for two reasons. First, we agree with appellant that, in the absence of record evidence, the trial court erred in sustaining exceptions to the report of the general master. Without a basis upon which to determine that the master clearly erred in his recommendations or that he misconceived the legal effect of the evidence, the trial court improperly set aside the general master’s report. Ferris v. Ferris, 417 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Claughton v. Claughton, 347 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
On remand, we direct the trial court to conduct further proceedings concerning the wife’s right to a judgment on the husband’s support arrearages. The trial court’s determination may be predicated upon either reconsideration of the testimony before the general master or upon the presentation to the trial court of additional testimony.
Second, the trial court erred in modifying the husband’s other support obligations because the issue of modification was not raised by the parties. See Kordak v. Williams, 404 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Sardinas v. Sardinas, 401 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Catinella v. Catinella, 497 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…PER CURIAM. Following this court’s opinion and decision reported in Catinella v. Catinella, 471 So. 2d 1362 (Fla.3d DCA 1985) the matter recurred in the trial court. Upon appropriate motions, duly noticed, the trial judge reviewed the evidence and the record as it existed before the General Master and rendered a judgment for the plaintiff on support arrea…
-
Petrakis v. Evangelina Petrakis, 597 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…burden is upon the party making exceptions to ensure that a transcript of those proceedings is provided to the trial court. See Mestre Rental Co. v. Resources Recovery (Dade County), Inc., 568 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Catinella v. Catinella, 471 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Ben-Hain v. Tacher, 418 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Ferris v. Ferris, 417 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Sitomer v. Sitomer, 397 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Claughton v. Claughton, 347 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Nat…
Authorities Cited
- Claughton v. Claughton, 347 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Elida Pauline Sardinas v. Sardinas, 401 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Ferris v. Ferris, 417 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Kordak v. Williams, 404 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)