ANTHONY MARTINEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
CARMEN GARCIA, 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.
Anthony Martinez appealed the trial court's denial of his exceptions to a general master's report recommending increased child support. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the child support guidelines applied to the modification proceeding and that the father waived his objection to the general master referral by failing to object beforehand.
The child support guidelines apply to modification proceedings filed after July 1, 1987, regardless of when the original order was entered. The father waived his objection to the general master referral by failing to object before the hearing commenced. The motion provided adequate notice under the circumstances. Although the trial court should have conducted a hearing on exceptions, reversal and remand were unnecessary because all legal issues were resolved on appeal.
[1] A party waives the right to object to a referral to a general master if the objection is not raised before the commencement of the hearing.
[2] Child support guidelines apply to proceedings for modification of an existing child support order if the petition for modification is filed on or after the effective date…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 child support guidelines are expressly applicable "in a proceeding for modification of an existing order for such support, whether the proceeding arises under this or another chapter."”
Establishes that guidelines apply to modification proceedings regardless of when the original order was entered
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1984, Martinez acknowledged paternity of Garcia's 1982 child and agreed to pay child support, which was incorporated into a final judgment in 1985.…
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 Notice Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, Judge.
Anthony Martinez appeals the trial court’s order denying his exceptions to the report of the general master and approving the report. We affirm.
In a November, 1984 agreement Martinez acknowledged paternity of the child born to appellee Carmen Garcia in 1982, and agreed to pay child support. The agreement was ratified and incorporated into a final judgment of paternity entered in 1985. In 1990 the mother moved to modify the level of child support, alleging a substantial change of circumstances. On motion by the mother, the matter was referred to the general master pursuant to Rule 1.490, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (1989). After hearing the parties the general master entered an order increasing the child support level. The father filed timely exceptions which were denied by the circuit judge without hearing. The father has appealed.
The father first contends that he did not consent to referral of the matter to the general master pursuant to Rule 1.490(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. As the father made no objection prior to commencement of the hearing before the general master, that objection is waived. Bathurst v. Turner, 533 So. 2d 939, 941 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
The father asserts that the child support guidelines are not applicable because the original child support decree was entered in 1985, prior to the July 1, 1987 effective date of the child support guidelines. See ch. 87-95, §§ 3, 25, Laws of Fla. That contention is misplaced. The child support guidelines are expressly applicable “in a proceeding for modification of an existing order for such support, whether the proceeding arises under this or another chapter.” § 61.30, Fla.Stat. (1989). The guidelines apply in “[a]ny action ... for modification of child support which is filed on or after the effective date of this act [July 1, 1987],...” Ch. 87-95, § 25, Laws of Fla. As the petition for modification was filed after July 1, 1987, the child support guidelines applied in the modification proceedings.*
The father next contends that the mother’s motion for modification did not give adequate notice of the relief sought. While the motion was brief, we conclude that it was adequate under the circumstances.
Finally, the father contends that the trial court was obliged to conduct a hearing on the timely filed exceptions. On that point the father is correct. The Rule so provides. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.490(h); see Monyek v. Monyek, 453 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Ordinarily we would reverse and remand for the conducting of the hearing. However, on this appeal we have disposed of the legal issues raised by the father. The only remaining contention is that the evidence does not support the general master’s findings. The father advances the theory here that the hearing under Rule 1.490(h) would be a hearing de novo, whereas in fact, it would be a review on the record made before the general master. See Ben-Hain v. Tacher, 418 So. 2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). In the absence of a record on which the trial court can review the factual determinations of the master (and given the fact that the father’s legal issues have been disposed of here), it would serve no useful purpose to remand for further hearing.
The order under review is therefore affirmed.
*
The decision in Trager v. Trager, 541 So. 2d 148, 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), is not to the contrary. In that case the guidelines were held inapplicable to a dissolution proceeding filed prior to July 1, 1987. By the statute's own terms, the guidelines were not applicable to such a proceeding. Ch. 87-95, § 25, Laws of Fla.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pitts v. Richmond B. Pitts, 626 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…idelines are applicable to a petition for modification filed after the July 1, 1987, effective date of the support guidelines, even though the original child support decree was entered prior to adoption of the support guidelines. Martinez v. Garcia, 575 So. 2d 1365, 1366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). It is reversible error to depart from the child support guidelines without provision of a written finding or a specific finding on the record explaining why it would be unjust or inappropriate to order payment of the guidel…
-
Newberry v. Newberry, 831 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…, relied on in the majority opinion, is not applicable here, as Hammond was decided prior to July 1, 1987, the effective date of the child support guidelines. The guidelines are only applicable to petitions filed after that date. Martinez v. Garcia, 575 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Thus Hammond is not helpful in analyzing child support issues under the guidelines. The result in this case is due to the fact that appellant’s income had increased substantially between the time of the final judgment and the mo…
-
Whight v. Tymme Douglas Whight, 635 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…Wife’s 1992 counter-petition, even though the original child support decree was entered prior to the July 1,1987, effective date of the initial child support guideline statute. Pitts v. Pitts, 626 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Martinez v. Garcia, 575 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The instant appeal, however, involves not a question relating to abuse of discretion, but rather a purely legal question as to whether the trial judge applied the correct legal- rule in reaching a decision on Appellant’s counter-…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Perez v. State, 418 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- State v. Johnson, 533 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- State v. Wayda, 533 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Trager v. Trager, 541 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Monyek v. Arlyne S. Monyek, 453 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Russo v. State, 453 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)