NADYNE MATA, APPELLANT,
v.
ANGEL R. MATA, 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.
A trial court cannot substitute its judgment for a magistrate's findings if supported by competent substantial evidence.
[1] A trial court, after appointing a magistrate to take testimony and make findings, loses the prerogative to substitute its judgment for that of the magistrate.
[2] When reviewing a magistrate's findings and recommendations, a trial court acts similarly to an appellate court reviewing a trial court's actions.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA general magistrate recommended temporary alimony and child support. The trial court rejected these recommendations over the former husband's excepti…
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 Imputation Of Income cases and more on FLexlaw
A general magistrate issued a report recommending that Angel R. Mata (“former husband”) pay $5,500 per month in temporary alimony to Nadyne Mata (“former wife”) and $733.14 per month in child support. On reviewing exceptions to the general magistrate’s report filed by the former husband, the trial court rejected the general magistrate’s recommendation.
“Once a trial court appoints a magistrate to take testimony and make findings, it loses the prerogative of substituting its, judgment for that of the magistrate.” Cerase v. Dewhurst, 935 So.2d 575, 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). “In such instances, a trial court reviewing a magistrate’s findings and l'ecommendations takes on a role similar to that of an appellate court reviewing a trial court’s actions.” Rodriguez v. Reyes, 112 So.3d 671, 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). If exceptions to the magistrate’s report have been filed, “a trial court reviews the record to determine whether the magistrate’s factual findings and conclusions are supported by competent substantial evidence, and whether the magistrate’s legal conclusions -are clearly erroneous or whether the magistrate misconceived the legal effect of the evidence.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted).
In this case, competent, substantial evidence supported the magistrate’s findings, including the income it imputed to the former husband based on the former wife’s unrebutted testimony regarding his historical earnings. See Ghay v. Ghay, 954 So.2d 1186, 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“[T]he Florida Supreme.Court and other district courts have suggested that a presumption arises from a spouse’s historical *1273earnings that supports a finding the spouse can continue to earn the same amount, absent evidence to the contrary.”) (citing Garfield v. Garfield, 58 So.2d 166, 167 (Fla.1952); Seitz v. Seitz, 471 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)). We therefore reverse the trial court’s decision and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Rodriguez, 112 So.3d at 674.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waldera v. Waldera, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D47 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…e Florida Supreme Court and other district courts have suggested that a presumption arises from a spouse’s historical earnings that supports a finding the spouse can continue to earn the same amount, absent evidence to the contrary.” Mata v. Mata, 185 So. 3d 1271, 1272-3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). See Garfield v. Garfield, 58 So. 2d 166, 167-68 (Fla. 1952) (observing that historical ability to earn $350 net per week, “will be presumed to continue unless the contrary is shown,” and holding that, if appellant’s “abi…1 / 2
-
Alvarez-Reyes v. Fernandez-Gil, 271 So. 3d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…t can impute income where a spouse has failed to use his or her best efforts to earn income” and “we shall not disturb any [such] ruling that is supported by the evidence and satisfies the general test of reasonableness”). See also Mata v. Mata, 185 So. 3d 1271, 1272-73 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (noting: “The Florida Supreme 3 Court and other district courts have suggested that a presumption arises from a spouse’s historical earnings that supports a finding the spouse can continue to earn the same amount,…
-
Golliner v. Golliner (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)…mount, absent evidence to the contrary." Ghay v. Ghay, 954 So. 2d 1186, 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citing Garfield v. Garfield, 58 So. 2d 166, 167 (Fla. 1952); see also Waldera v. Waldera, 306 So. 3d 1037, 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (same); Mata v. Mata, 185 So. 3d 1271, 1272-73 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (same). In cases where a party's income fluctuates based on, as here, bonus or commission income, trial courts may average income for purposes of calculating child support or alimony. See ---PAGE 13--- Waldera, 306 So. 3…
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
- Seitz v. Seitz, 471 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Sunil Ghay v. Poonam Ghay, 954 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Garfield v. Garfield, 58 So.2d 166 (Fla. 1952)
- Dondrae Williams v. State, 935 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Williams v. State, 935 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Eddy Rodriguez v. Reyes, 112 So. 3d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)