JOSEPHINA GONZALES PALMER, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID RAY PALMER, 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.
In a post-judgment child support and alimony dispute, the trial court prematurely approved a general master's report before the statutory ten-day period for filing exceptions had expired. The appellate court vacated the approval order and remanded because the court failed to account for weekends and legal holidays in calculating the deadline.
Yes. The trial court erred in entering its approval order on October 10, 1989, because the ten-day period for filing exceptions did not end until the end of October 10. The tenth day fell on Sunday, October 8, and October 9 was Columbus Day, so the period extended through October 10.
[1] A trial court errs by approving a general master's report before the expiration of the ten-day period for filing exceptions.
[2] The ten-day period for filing exceptions to a master's report begins to run the day after service of the report.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 parties may serve exceptions to the report within 10 days from the time it is served on them. If no exceptions are filed within the period, the court shall take appropriate action on the report.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for the ten-day exception period under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(h).
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA general master issued a report on September 28, 1989, in post-judgment child support and alimony proceedings. The trial court entered an order appro…
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.
Substituted Opinion
PER CURIAM.
The opinion of December 18, 1990 is withdrawn and replaced with the following:
In post-judgment child support and alimony proceedings, a general master’s report was issued on September 28, 1989. The trial court entered its order approving the report on October 10, 1989. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(h) provides that “[t]he master shall file his report and serve copies on the parties. The parties may serve exceptions to the report within 10 days from the time it is served on them. If no exceptions are filed within the period, the court shall take appropriate action on the report.” Rule 1.090(a) states that “the day of the act, event or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included.” It further provides that “[t]he last day of the period so computed shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday in which event the period shall run until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.” Although the record does not indicate the date that the report was served on the former wife, the earliest the report could have been served was September 28. Thus, the ten-day period began on September 29. The tenth day was Sunday, October 8, and the following day, October 9, the second Monday in October, was the day on which the court observed Columbus Day. Thus, the ten-day period for filing exceptions did not end until the end of October 10. Therefore, the trial court erred in entering its order approving the general master’s report on October 10, pri-or to the end of the ten-day period.1 See Cox v. Cox, 490 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Elliott v. Elliott, 478 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Berkheimer v. Berkheimer, 466 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Plevy v. Plevy, 466 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
Accordingly, we vacate the order of approval and remand for further proceedings.
. Moreover, Rule 1.090(e) provides an additional five days for responding after service by mail. Thus, in the present case, if the master’s report was served by mail, then the above section would have permitted the wife fifteen days after September 28, 1990, or October 14, 1990 (which since it was a Sunday would equate to October 15, 1990) within which to respond.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Riley v. Riley, 14 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(e), the Husband had an additional five days to serve his exceptions because the magistrate’s report was served on him by mail. See Werntz v. Floyd, 814 So. 2d 480, 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Palmer v. Palmer, 582 So. 2d 639, 640 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). In fact, the Wife cites Werntz in her answer brief and recognizes that the Husband was allowed the additional five days to serve his exceptions. The time to serve the exceptions began to run on April 24, 2007, the day…
-
Calderon v. Calderon, 26 So. 3d 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(e), the Husband had an additional five days to serve his exceptions because the magistrate’s report was served on him by mail. See Werntz v. Floyd, 814 So. 2d 480, 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Palmer v. Palmer, 582 So. 2d 639, 640 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Id. at 1289. Because the general magistrate entered and served his report on Thursday, October 2, 2008, and Husband mailed (served) his exceptions via express mail to the clerk of the court on October 16, 2008, his ex…
-
Optimum Nutrition, Inc. v. Performance Trading IMP. EXP & COM. Ltd., 69 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…all be added to the prescribed period. The time period for an act to be computed after service of a notice, pleading, motion, order or paper served by mail includes five days which are added to the time. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090; see Palmer v. Palmer, 582 So. 2d 639, 640 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Because the notice of lack of prosecution was served by mail upon Optimum, an additional five days must be added to the safe-harbor period, meaning the period for conducting record activity did not actually expire until…
Authorities Cited
- Plevy v. Plevy, 466 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Hans v. State, 490 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Elliott v. Elliott, 478 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)