LELANI BARROW, APPELLANT,
v.
MARK T. BARROW, 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.
The trial court erred in ordering a trial de novo after a general master denied a petition for modification of child support.
A husband petitioned to modify child support due to health-related retirement. A general master denied the petition after taking testimony. The trial …
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 General Master'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Lelani Barrow appeals a trial court order sustaining objections to a general master’s report and granting a new trial of her former husband’s petition for modification of child support. We reverse.
Mr. Barrow petitioned for modification of child support based on changed circumstances resulting from his retirement for health reasons. The trial court referred the matter to a general master who took testimony, made findings of fact, and denied the petition. When Mr. Barrow filed exceptions to the general master’s report, the trial court ordered a trial de novo. Mrs. Barrow appeals, asserting that the trial court improperly rejected the general master’s findings.
“The findings of fact and recommendations of a master should be approved and adopted by a trial judge unless clearly erroneous, or it appears that the master has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence.” Bloom v. Bloom, 414 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Landis v. Landis, 486 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Linn v. Linn, 523 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 534 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1988); Sitomer v. Sitomer, 397 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The record does not reveal any error in the master’s fact findings; accordingly, the trial court is not at liberty to diverge from his recommendations. We therefore reverse the order and remand the cause with directions to enter an order in accordance with the general master’s findings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gutierrez v. Medina, 613 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…be reversed. “The findings of fact and recommendations of a master should be approved and adopted by a trial judge unless clearly erroneous, or it appears that the master has misconceived the legal effect of the evi [*530] dence.” Barrow v. Barrow, 563 So. 2d 219, 219 (Fla. 3d DCA1990) (quoting Bloom v. Bloom, 414 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA1982)). Here, the record reflects that the genera] master misconceived the legal effect of the evidence. “It was the father’s extraordinary burden to prove, on his pe…
-
Rosaly Sheppard & The Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Sheppard, 630 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…ral master’s report. “The findings of fact and recommendations of a master should be approved and adopted by a trial, judge unless clearly erroneous, or it appears that the máster has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence.” Barrow v. Barrow, 563 So. 2d 219, 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Bloom v. Bloom, 414 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Landis v. Landis, 486 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The court’s ratification and adoption of the master’s report is proper; the master’s findings are supported by the recor…
-
Gomez v. Ladys Infante Gomez, 636 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Radin v. Radin, 593 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 605 So. 2d 1265 (Fla.1992); Cimitier v. Cimitier, 579 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Barrow v. Barrow, 563 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sitomer v. Sitomer, 397 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Barbes v. State, 414 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Bloom v. Bloom, 414 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Caribbean Ship Chandler, Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 523 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Linn v. Linn, 523 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Hubbard v. Hubbard, 486 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Landis v. Landis, 486 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)