GENA M. LAWSON
v.
LOREN C. BARTLEY
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 appellate court reversed a final judgment because the trial court failed to hold a hearing on the appellant's exceptions to a magistrate's report before issuing the judgment. The case was remanded for the trial court to conduct the required hearing.
Yes, the trial court erred by failing to hold a hearing on the exceptions. No, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to vacate its judgment after the notice of appeal was filed.
[1] A trial court must hold a hearing to address a party's exceptions to a general magistrate's report before issuing a final judgment.
[2] A trial court loses jurisdiction to modify or clarify a final order once a notice of appeal has been filed.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Rule 12.490 of the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure requires a hearing when a party files an exception to a general magistrate’s report.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that was not met.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA general magistrate issued a report and recommendation regarding parental responsibility and time-sharing. The appellant filed exceptions to this rep…
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 Jurisdiction After Notice Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in ratifying the report of the general magistrate in its final judgment before holding a hearing addressing Appellant’s exceptions to the magistrate’s report. Additionally, Appellant argues that the magistrate abused her discretion in modifying Appellee’s child support and deviating from the timesharing guidelines.
Appellee’s “Petition to Establish Parental Responsibility and Establish Parenting/Time Sharing Plan” was scheduled for a hearing before a general magistrate. After the hearing, the magistrate filed a report and recommendation with the trial court. On the same day the magistrate filed her report, Appellant filed exceptions to the report.
The trial court issued a “Final Judgment Establishing Parental Responsibility and Parenting/Time-Sharing Plan” that adopted most of the magistrate’s recommendations. Appellant appealed that judgment to this Court. After Appellant filed her appeal, the trial court realized it had not held a hearing to address Appellant’s exceptions to the magistrate’s report. The trial court commendably vacated and set aside its final judgment and scheduled a hearing on Appellant’s exceptions.
Rule 12.490 of the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure requires a hearing when a party files an exception to a general magistrate’s report. Although the trial court attempted to vacate and set aside the final judgment and schedule a hearing, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to do so. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.600(a); Soles v. Soles, 536 So. 2d 367, 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (finding a trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue an order clarifying and modifying a final order for which Appellant had already filed a notice of appeal).
This case is remanded to the trial court to hold a hearing on Appellant’s exceptions to the magistrate’s report and issue a final judgment.
REVERSED and REMANDED. ROWE and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur. _____________________________