JACK KUPER, APPELLANT,
v.
NANCY KUPER, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a post-judgment order enforcing a marital settlement agreement because the trial court improperly referred the wife's contempt motion to a general master despite the husband's written objection, violating Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.490(c).
A trial court violates Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.490(c) by referring a contempt motion to a general master over a party's written objection, and such referral is reversible error.
[1] A trial court's referral of a contempt motion to a general master violates Fla.R.Civ.P. …
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“the husband had already filed before the trial court a written objection to the aforesaid referral and it was entirely unnecessary to repeat that objection before the general master”
Court's rejection of wife's waiver argument, citing Bathurst v. Turner
In a marital dissolution case, the wife filed a motion for contempt regarding enforcement of a property settlement agreement. The trial court refused …
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 Motion For Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the husband Jack Kuper from a post-judgment order which approves the report of a general master and enforces a marital property settlement agreement. We reverse the order under review upon a holding that the wife Nancy Kuper’s motion for contempt in this matter was improperly referred by the trial court to the general master, over the written objection of the husband Jack Kuper, in violation of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.490(c). All agree that (a) the trial court specifically refused to hear the wife’s motion for contempt on the day the motion had been specially set for a hearing, and (b) notwithstanding the husband’s previously filed written objection thereto, the trial court orally referred the motion to the general master for a hearing. We specifically reject the wife’s contention that the husband waived any objection to the general master hearing this motion because the husband did not make an objection thereto before the general master; the husband had already filed before the trial court a written objection to the aforesaid referral and it was entirely unnecessary to repeat that objection before the general master. Bathurst v. Turner, 533 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
The post-judgment order under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to hear the wife’s above-stated motion for contempt.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. McKAY, 568 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Here, the husband filed a written objection prior 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 Bathurs…
-
Rosen v. The Honorable Harold Solomon, 586 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…by the defendants-petitioners. Bathurst v. Turner, 533 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); accord Wilson v. McKay, 568 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (agreement to previous order of reference does not waive objection to subsequent order); Kuper v. Kuper, 564 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Slattery v. Slattery, 528 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Accordingly, mandamus is granted requiring the trial court itself to hear and determine those matters. Bathurst, 533 So. 2d at 939. The petitions are otherwise denied. Th…
-
Raines v. State, 600 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…appeals his conviction for burglary with an assault. We conclude, first, that there was suffi [*48] cient evidence to support the conviction of defendant of that offense. See Hernandez v. State, 569 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); McKnight v. State, 564 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Second, it was permissible for the trial court to charge the jury on the instant offense, as it was a lesser included offense of the main charge, burglary with an assault or battery with a handgun. See State v. Johnson, 601 So. 2…
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
- State v. Johnson, 533 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- State v. Wayda, 533 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)