TED MOSKOWITZ, APPELLANT,
v.
BARBARA MOSKOWITZ AND ARMOR PEST MANAGEMENT, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORP., APPELLEES
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.
The trial court erred by ratifying a general master's report before the mandatory 10-day period for filing exceptions had passed.
The trial court entered an order ratifying a general master's report just two days after its entry, before the 10-day period for filing exceptions had…
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 General Master'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court lacked the discretion to enter an order ratifying a general master’s report just two days after its entry. The provisions of rule 1.490(h), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, are mandatory. The rule authorizes the trial court to take appropriate action on the master’s report only if no exceptions are taken within a 10 day period. If exceptions are filed, they are to be heard.
The clear import of the rule is that a trial court may take appropriate action only after the court hears the exceptions. Therefore, it was error to deny appellant’s motion to vacate the premature order. Berkheimer v. Berkheimer, 466 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Kay v. Kay, 430 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Cox v. Cox, 490 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Elliott v. Elliott, 478 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Dembrowski v. Dembrowski, 580 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
We recognize that this issue appears mooted by the trial court’s subsequent denial of appellant’s exceptions. Appellees argue that a trial court may disregard the clear mandate of the above opinions of this court by simply providing in a premature enforcement order that it is “subject to” any subsequently filed objections. However, we decline to read such an exception into the established rule, particularly given the history of this court’s repeated insis tence that the purpose of the rule be honored. Therefore, the order is reversed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we do also note that we can discern no impediment, on remand, to a reentry of the trial court order after a hearing on appellant’s exceptions.
HERSEY and STONE, JJ., and DOWNEY, JAMES C., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dehler v. Dehler, 639 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…he master’s report before entering an order confirming that report. We agree. Rule 1.490(h), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, provides: “If exceptions are filed, they shall be heard on reasonable notice by either party.” In Moskowitz v. Moskowitz, 611 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), we held that a court abused its discretion by failing to wait for the expiration of the ten day period provided for filing exceptions, and instead entering an order two days after the master’s report was filed. We have determine…
-
Werntz v. Floyd, 814 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…te as December 7, 2000, which she did. The court’s order of contempt entered on December 7, 2000, without considering the timely filed exceptions, was error. See Jansen v. Jansen, 758 So. 2d 1220, 1220-21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Moskowitz v. Moskowitz, 611 So. 2d 615, 615-16 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Reversed. KLEIN and MAY, JJ., concur.…
-
Scott v. Freida K. Scott, 667 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ellant challenges a Final Order of Commitment entered by the trial court. He contends that the court erred in entering the order prior to ruling on exceptions from the general master’s report recommending commitment. Based on Moskowitz v. Moskowitz, 611 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), we reverse. The husband had previously been held in contempt by the trial court for failure to pay alimony to the former wife. On September 22, 1994, the wife moved for commitment based on the order of contempt. A general maste…
Authorities Cited
- Plevy v. Plevy, 466 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- KAY v. KAY, 430 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Hans v. State, 490 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Elliott v. Elliott, 478 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Raven D. Dembrowski v. Dembrowski, 580 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)