DAVID R. EDMONDS

v.

RACHEL EDMONDS

MIZE, J.

This appeal arises from a dissolution of marriage proceeding.¹ The Appellee and former wife, Rachel Edmonds (“Former Wife”), filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage on October 21, 2019. The trial judge referred the case to a General

Magistrate. The magistrate conducted a trial and submitted a Report and Recommended Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage (the “Initial Report”) to the trial judge. The Initial Report rejected a request from the Appellant and former husband, David Edmonds (“Former Husband”), to impute income to Former Wife beyond her actual earnings and recommended awarding Former Wife durational alimony in the amount of $1,500.00 per month for five years. Both parties filed timely exceptions to the Initial Report. The trial judge held a hearing on the parties’ respective exceptions and entered an Order on Exceptions to General Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations (the “Initial Order”) which: (1) upheld the magistrate’s finding that Former Wife was not underemployed; (2) found that the Initial Report did not provide support in the record for the magistrate’s award of durational alimony in the amount of $1,500.00 per month; and (3) remanded the case “back to the Magistrate for a supplemental order demonstrating the factual basis and/or mathematical calculations that are supported by the evidence adduced at trial or through other equitable means and considerations that were relied upon by the Magistrate in reaching his determination that $1,500 is the appropriate amount of durational alimony.” On remand, the magistrate entered a Supplemental Report and Recommendation on the Issue of Alimony in the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage (the “Supplemental Report”). In the Supplemental Report, the magistrate found that Former Wife’s income was $1,971.00 per month, her necessary expenses were $3,461.32 per month, and that, therefore, Former Wife’s need for alimony was $1,490.32 per month. Both parties again filed timely exceptions.

Without holding a hearing on either party’s exceptions to the Supplemental Report, the trial court entered a Supplemental Order on Exceptions to General Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation (the “Supplemental Order”) that ordered Former Husband to pay alimony in the amount of $3,929.00 per month for five years rather than the $1,500.00 per month recommended by the Magistrate. Former Husband appeals the Initial Order on the ground that the trial court erred by adopting the magistrate’s finding that Former Wife was not underemployed. Former Husband appeals the Supplemental Order on multiple grounds, including that the trial court failed to hold a hearing on the parties’ respective exceptions to the Supplemental Report as required by the version of Rule 12.490(f) of the Family Law Rules of Procedure in effect at that time.² As to the Initial Order, we find no error and affirm. As to the Supplemental Order, the trial court erred by entering an order on the Supplemental Report without holding a hearing on the parties’ respective exceptions to the Supplemental Report.

The version of Rule 12.490(f) of the Family Law Rules of Procedure in effect during the lower court proceedings provided: The general magistrate must file the report and recommendations and serve copies on all parties. The parties may file exceptions to the report within 10 days from the time it is served on them…If exceptions are filed, they must be heard on reasonable notice by either party or the court.

Thus, where a party timely files exceptions to a magistrate’s report, it is reversible error for a trial court to fail to conduct a hearing on the exceptions before entering an order on the report. See Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 48 So. 3d 118, 119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing Simmons v. Simmons, 16 So. 3d 878 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)); Jean v. Jean, 320 So. 3d 313, 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021); Langsetmo v. Metza, 306 So. 3d 112, 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020); Erskine v. Erskine, 262 So. 3d 223, 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Cazi v. Prophete, 130 So. 3d 723, 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).3

Because the trial court failed to hold a hearing on the parties’ respective exceptions to the Supplemental Report, the trial court’s Supplemental Order must be reversed and remanded to the trial court to hold a hearing on the parties’ exceptions.

Since the trial court’s failure to hold a hearing on the parties’ exceptions renders the Supplemental Order deficient, we do not address the Former Husband’s other points on appeal. At the hearing to be held on remand, the Former Husband may address these arguments to the trial court. Based on the foregoing:

(1) The Order on Exceptions to General Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations entered on July 20, 2021 is AFFIRMED. (2) The Supplemental Order on Exceptions to General Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations entered on August 3, 2021 is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED for further proceedings.

NARDELLA, J., concurs. COHEN, J., concurs specially, with opinion.