MILLARD B. WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
CECELIA S. WRIGHT, APPELLEE
MILLARD B. WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
CECELIA S. WRIGHT, APPELLEE
516 So. 2d 9
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1987)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s order finding that the report of the general master is supported by competent evidence. See Landis v. Landis, 486 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (“A trial court is bound by a master’s factual findings when they are supported by competent evidence.”); Shaw v. Shaw, 369 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (trial court must uphold master’s findings unless report was clearly erroneous or master misconceived legal effect of evidence).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cerase v. Frederic R. Dewhurst, 935 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (en banc) (noting that “the trial court may only reject [a magistrate’s] findings and conclusions if they are clearly erroneous or if the [magistrate] has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence presented”); Wright v. Wright, 516 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.…
Authorities Cited
- Trotter v. State, 369 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Hubbard v. Hubbard, 486 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Landis v. Landis, 486 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)