BONNIE DEHLER, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD DEHLER, 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 court held that the trial court erred by failing to hold a hearing on the former wife's timely filed exceptions to the general master's report before entering a contempt order.
[1] An order holding a party in contempt and offering avoidance of jail as an inducement to perform acts required by the court is reviewable as an appeal from a non-final ord…
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by failing to hold a hearing on timely filed exceptions to a master's or general master's 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 intelligenceThe former wife was held in contempt by the trial court. She appealed, arguing the court erred by not holding a hearing on her exceptions to the gener…
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 Post-Judgment Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the former wife, Bonnie Dehler, from a post-judgment order holding her in contempt and offering avoidance of jail as an inducement to perform the acts required by the court. Such an order is reviewable as an appeal from a non-final order entered after final judgment pursuant to Rule 9.130(a)(4), Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure. See, e.g., Department of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Beckwith, 624 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
Both parties filed motions to hold the other party in contempt. Other motions were filed. Eventually, the matter was referred to a commissioner/general master. After a hearing, the general master filed her report and the former wife timely filed her objections to it. Thereafter, the trial court entered the order which is the subject of this appeal and which holds the former wife in contempt. On appeal the former wife contends, inter alia, that the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing on her timely filed exceptions to the 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 determined that if exceptions are filed, they are to be heard. See also Berkheimer v. Berkheimer, 466 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Kay v. Kay, 430 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); and Wyman v. Wyman, 430 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
Our disposition of this issue makes it unnecessary to consider any of the points on appeal regarding the contempt order itself.
We reverse and remand to give the parties an opportunity to be heard on the exceptions to the master’s report.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HERSEY, GLICKSTEIN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Remington v. Remington, 705 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…This court has held that a post-judgment contempt order in a dissolution proceeding “is renewable as an appeal from a non-final order entered after final judgment pursuant to Rule 9.130(a)(4), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.” Dehler v. Dehler, 639 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see also Alves v. Barnett Mortgage Co., 688 So. 2d 459, 460 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). However, the holding of Dehler merely describes the procedural rule authorizing the appeal; it does not characterize a post-judgment contempt…
-
Alves v. Barnett Mortg. Co. & J.J. Kislak Mortg. Corp., 688 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…Continental Cas. Co. v. Morgan, 445 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Langbert v. Langbert, 409 So. 2d 1066, 1067 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). In contrast, we have reviewed post judgment contempt orders pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(4). See Dehler v. Dehler, 639 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The first and third district review pre-judgment contempt orders by exercising certiorari jurisdiction under rule 9.030(b)(2)(A). See Sears v. Sears, 617 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Stewart v. Mussoline, 487 So. 2d 96 (Fla.…
Authorities Cited
- Plevy v. Plevy, 466 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- KAY v. KAY, 430 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Beckwith, 624 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Wyman v. Wyman, 430 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Moskowitz v. Moskowitz, 611 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)