JUDITH ANN HAZELWOOD, APPELLANT,
v.
MAXWELL G. HAZELWOOD, 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 second appeal in a divorce/alimony case, the court reversed the trial court's decision to reject the master's recommendation for modification of alimony. The case demonstrates that when a prior appellate decision remands for consideration of equitable remedies including modification based on changed circumstances, the trial court must follow that directive rather than sustain exceptions to a master's report that complies with the appellate mandate.
The trial court erred in sustaining exceptions to the master's report. The master's findings and recommendations fully complied with the appellate court's prior opinion and mandate. There was no legal basis or justification for the trial court to reject the master's recommendation, and the case must be remanded for a further hearing to determine appellant's need and appellee's ability to pay.
[1] A court may consider equitable remedies, including modification of a judgment, to meet present conditions based on a party's needs and the other party's ability to pay.
[2] A trial court must follow the mandate of an appellate court upon remand.
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“for further consideration by the court of any equitable remedies, including modification of the judgment to meet present conditions, which comport with the wife's needs and the husband's ability to pay.”
The appellate court's remand directive that the trial court failed to follow
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties previously appeared before this court regarding non-payment of alimony. A court-approved stipulation modified the final judgment to provid…
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 Exceptions To Master'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The last time the parties appeared before this court we upheld the trial court’s refusal to hold appellee in contempt for failure to pay alimony.1 Nevertheless, we remanded the case “for further consideration by the court of any equitable remedies, including modification of the judgment to meet present conditions, which comport with the wife’s needs and the husband’s ability to pay.”2 The prior appeal disclosed that appellee had ceased paying any alimony under a court approved stipulation which modified the final judgment to provide permanent periodic alimony of the lesser of $1,000 per month or fifty per cent of appellee’s net income as defined therein. The prior appeal further disclosed that since 1979 appellee ceased income-producing employment and became an unpaid consultant to his current wife’s business.
Upon remand, the trial court referred appellant’s “Motion for Equitable Relief” to a general master. The master recommended, inter alia, that the motion be granted, that the existing court order regarding alimony be modified to provide appellant with permanent periodic alimony, the amount to be determined at a further hearing. The trial court sustained the appellee’s exceptions to the master’s report and denied appellant any relief. The master’s findings and recommendations fully complied with the opinion and mandate of this court. There was no legal basis or justification to sustain the exceptions to the report. The report should be approved and a further hearing held before the court or general master to determine appellant’s need and appellee’s ability to pay.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., and RIVKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge, concur. . Hazelwood v. Hazelwood, 449 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
. Id. at 881.