WILSON LOPEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
ALINA FONTS LOPEZ, 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.
The appellate court reversed a final judgment of dissolution and an order of contempt because the general master failed to file a record of evidence with the trial court, violating procedural rules. The case was remanded for a new trial on all issues.
Yes, the final judgment of dissolution, awards thereunder, and the order of contempt are reversed because the general master's failure to file the required record of evidence renders subsequent actions erroneous.
[1] A general master's report and recommendations in a domestic dissolution proceeding are subject to being deemed erroneous and based upon possible improper recommendations…
[2] Subsequent actions based on a general master's report are subject to reversal if the report is defective due to a lack of filed evidence.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“No record of evidence received by the general master as to portions of proceedings in a domestic dissolution proceeding was filed with the trial court at the time of the filing of her reports, as is required by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.490(f).”
This quote establishes the core factual and procedural defect that led to the reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a domestic dissolution proceeding, the general master did not file a record of evidence with the trial court when submitting reports. This failure …
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.
PER CURIAM.
No record of evidence received by the general master as to portions of proceedings in a domestic dissolution proceeding was filed with the trial court at the time of the filing of her reports, as is required by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.490(f). Petrakis v. Petrakis, 597 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Kay v. Kay, 430 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Berk v. Berk, 423 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
Accordingly, all subsequent actions based on such reports and recommendations, upon attack, are subject to being deemed erroneous and based upon possible improper recommendations.
Therefore, the final judgment of dissolution, the awards thereunder, and the order of contempt under review be and the same are hereby reversed. This matter is returned to the trial court for proceedings de novo as to all issues presented by the pleadings with the trial court taking into consideration the applicable law in such a dissolution proceeding. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985); Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1977); Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1975); Fort v. Fort, 90 So. 2d 313 (Fla.1956); Slatkoff v. Dezen, 74 So. 2d 59 (Fla.1954); Harmon v. Harmon, 40 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1949); Cushman v. Cushman, 585 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Milligan v. Addison, 582 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Ensley v. Ensley, 578 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Arce v. Arce, 566 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Greene v. Greene, 547 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Kernan v. Kernan, 495 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Mounce v. Mounce, 459 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Shapiro v. Shapiro, 452 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Bell v. Bell, 307 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Traylor v. Traylor, 214 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968); §§ 61.075(1); 61.13(2); 61.-30(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1989); Cf. Bedell v. Bedell, 583 So. 2d 1005 (Fla.1991); Cowie v. Cowie, 564 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Rosen v. Rosen, 528 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), review denied, 537 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1988).
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
de Clements v. de Clements, 662 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…port where the Master has failed to produce, and file with his or her report, a written record of the evidence and testimony presented before it. See Zebracki v. Zebracki, 648 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Knupp, 625 So. 2d at 867; Lopez v. Lopez, 622 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Gordin v. Gordin Int’l, Inc., 605 So. 2d 154, 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). To sanction a judgment in accordance with a General Master’s report, without the trial court having had the benefit of a complete record before it, would be i…
-
Knupp v. Galen A. Knupp, 625 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…finding that the responsibility for ensuring that a unitten record is created in the first place clearly falls upon the General Master under Rule 1490(f), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Petrakis, 597 So. 2d at 857 (e.s.); accord Lopez v. Lopez, 622 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), and cases cited. The form’s failure to mention this key element of Petrakis is unworthy of any part of our justice system. It should be corrected at once. . See op. at 866.…
-
Boalt v. Boalt, 672 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…hearing. Without written evidence, transcripts or otherwise, the report was incomplete and the trial court erred in ruling on the appellant’s exceptions to the report. See DeClements v. DeClements, 662 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Lopez v. Lopez, 622 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); and Gordin v. Gordin Int’l, Inc., 605 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In her answer brief, appellee claims that at the hearing, counsel for appellant told the court that he had ordered a transcript, that it was not ready at the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (23 total)
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)
- Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1975)
- Rocco Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1977)
- Harmon v. Harmon, 40 So.2d 209 (Fla. 1949)
- Diane v. Bedell, 583 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 1991)
- Fort v. Anne Burton Fort, 90 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1956)
- Slatcoff v. Dezen, 74 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1954)
- Ensley v. Ensley, 578 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Earle Cushman v. Cushman, 585 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Bell v. Bell, 307 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)