FREDERIC J. BERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
LINDA S. BERMAN, 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.
Frederic Berman appeals from a post-judgment order issued by the trial court that adopted a master's report without providing him proper notice or opportunity to object. Although the court found procedural error in the master's report process, it affirmed because Berman obtained substantially all the relief he sought.
Although the trial court committed procedural error by failing to comply with Rule 1.490, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring findings of fact, recommendations, and service of the master's report, the error was harmless because the appellant received virtually all the relief he sought, except for the contempt order, which is discretionary and was not shown to be erroneous.
[1] A trial court commits error when it enters an order based on a master's report that lacks findings of fact, recommendations, and proper service upon a party, thereby prev…
[2] An error in a trial court's procedure may be deemed harmless if the appealing party ultimately receives substantially all the relief sought.
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 rule requires that all of those things should occur. Rule 1.490, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure; Johnson v. Johnson, 585 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Be that as it may, we hold that the error is harmless because appellant ultimately received virtually all of the relief sought”
Establishes the harmless error standard applied despite the procedural violation in the master's report process
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a divorce, the trial court held a hearing before a master regarding post-judgment matters. The master issued a report that allegedly contain…
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 Opportunity To Object cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, the erstwhile husband, appeals from an order of the trial court entered post final judgment after a hearing before a master. The main thrust of the husband’s appeal is that the trial court entered the order appealed from based upon a master’s report that allegedly contained no findings of fact, recommendations, nor service upon appellant, and thus no opportunity was afforded to file objections to the report. The husband also complains that the trial court failed to find the wife in contempt.
The order complained of accepted the master’s report, denied the husband’s motion for contempt, ordered the wife to pay the money due him for the child’s dancing lessons, gave the husband a judgment for money due from the wife for bills attributable to her, ordered the wife to return the husband’s mother’s dishes, etc., to the husband, and denied the husband’s request for attorney’s fees.
The record presented is somewhat inadequate. It does not contain the master’s report, which the judgment states the court received. Nevertheless, since there is no contrary evidence in the record, we accept appellant’s statement that the Master’s report contained no findings of fact or recommendations and he did not receive a copy. Thus, he was unable to file his objections to the report. This, of course, is error because the rule requires that all of those things should occur. Rule 1.490, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure; Johnson v. Johnson, 585 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Be that as it may, we hold that the error is harmless because appellant ultimately received virtually all of the relief sought, except the order of contempt,1 which is a matter within the discretion of the court and not shown to be erroneous here. The recitation above demonstrates that the husband received most of what he sought in the order under review. The relief not contained therein was obtained via other proceedings such as habeas corpus.
Accordingly, it appears to us that no reversible error has been demonstrated. If there is other relief to which the husband feels entitled, we suggest he seek it in a new petition.
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur. . We hold that the order denying the motion for contempt is reviewable as a non-final order entered after final judgment, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4) and Clearwater Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Sampson, 336 So. 2d 78 (Fla.1976).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Talman v. Hawkins, 703 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. We redesignate the Petition for Writ of Certiorari as an appeal of a non-final order under rule 9.130(a)(4), Florida Rules Appellate Procedure. See Berman v. Berman, 591 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). We summarily affirm the trial court’s ruling pursuant to rule 9.315(a), Florida Rules Appellate Procedure. This affirmance is without prejudice to appellant’s seeking other appropriate relief in the trial court. AFFIRMED. GL…
-
Laguardia v. Tompkins Inv. Grp., 715 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…him sufficient attorney's fees and court costs. Our decision renders that issue moot. . The trial court’s order denying Laguardia's motion for contempt was reviewable as a nonfinal appealable order. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(4); Berman v. Berman, 591 So. 2d 1142, 1143 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).…
Authorities Cited
- Clearwater Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Sampson, 336 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1976)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 585 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)