YEVGENIY KHATA
v.
OLGA BELOVA
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 affirmed the trial court's adoption of a general master's findings of fact and conclusions of law, holding that the findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous.
A trial court properly adopts a general master's factual findings when they are supported by competent, substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous.
[1] A trial court's adoption of a general master's factual findings is proper when the findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[A] [general] [m]aster's findings of fact and conclusions of law come to the trial court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the trial court may only reject these findings and conclusions if they are clearly erroneous or if the [general] [m]aster has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence presented.”
Standard of review for general master's findings
A general master was appointed to conduct fact-finding and recommend disposition of pending issues in a case between Khata and Belova.…
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 Scope Of Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLER, J.
“[A] [general] [m]aster’s findings of fact and conclusions of law come to the trial court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the trial court may only reject these findings and conclusions if they are clearly erroneous or if the [general] [m]aster has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence presented.” De Clements v. De Clements, 662 So. 2d 1276, 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (en banc) (citations omitted). Here, as the general master’s factual findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence, and the recommendations were not clearly erroneous, they were properly adopted by the trial court.
Accordingly, we affirm. See Robinson v. Robinson, 928 So. 2d 360, 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“Where a general master has been appointed for fact-finding and to recommend disposition of pending issues, the trial court is bound by the general master’s factual findings[,] unless they are not supported by competent[,] substantial evidence or are clearly erroneous.”) (citations omitted); Sonson v. Sonson, 815 So. 2d 685, 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (holding the “trial court properly ratified the general master’s finding [of fact], as there [was] competent[,] substantial evidence to support the finding”) (citing Moncrief v. Hall, 63 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1953)); see also Ward v. Dones, 90 So. 3d 826, 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (holding the trial court “exceeded the scope of permissible review” in reweighing evidence “rather than determining whether the [general magistrate’s] findings [of fact] were supported by competent[,] substantial evidence”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Malvin Garnett v. Priscille Duvalsaint, 400 So. 3d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- de Clements v. de Clements, 662 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 928 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Moncrief v. Hall, 63 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1953)
- Ward v. Nahir I. Dones, 90 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Lopez v. THE Canteen Corp. & Host Int'l, Inc., 815 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)