BRENDAN GERARD SLATTERY, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLISON PIERCE SLATTERY, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
We reverse and remand the trial court’s order ratifying the general master’s report. By doing so, we unfortunately exacerbate the children’s needs, they being the beneficiaries of the substantial sum of unpaid child support, and also exacerbate the former wife’s needs, her student loans not having been paid as required by the former husband.
The trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(c), as the former husband filed a timely objection to the reference to a general master. Furthermore, the trial court failed to make an affirmative finding of the former husband’s present ability to comply as required by Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985), and Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla.1976).
DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. Taylor, 569 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…GARRETT, Judge. We choose to treat this appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition. Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c). As such, we grant the petition on the authority of Slattery v. Slattery, 528 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Appellant timely objected to the order which referred a motion to compel hearing to the general -master. The trial judge overruled the objection. A party’s consent is required before the hearing can be referred to the genera…
-
Heilman v. Heilman, 596 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 1992)…. Heilman’s arguments that: (1) the committee note requires the consent of the parties; (2) rule 1.491 was not properly invoked as to apply to non-title IV-D cases; and (3) there is no difference between rules 1.490 and 1.491. Slattery v. Slattery, 528 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), and Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 566 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), relied on by the petitioner, are inapplicable because they involved proceedings under rule 1.490, not rule 1.491. Oliveri v. Oliveri, 541 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1…
-
Wilson v. McKAY, 568 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…rior to the hearing. Thus, the trial court erred in overruling the husband’s objections and approving the report’s provisions pertaining to attorney’s fees and costs. Kuper v. Kuper, 564 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Bathurst; Slattery v. Slattery, 528 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.490(c). Furthermore, the husband did not waive his right to object by participating in the hearing after filing his objection. Kuper; see Bathurst, 533 So. 2d at 941 n. 3; cf. Goldfarb v. Agran, 546 So. 2d 24, 25…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)
- Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1976)