CHARLOTTE VOGEL, APPELLANT,
v.
HARVEY VOGEL, 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 mother appealed an order denying her petition to increase child support. The court affirmed the trial judge's decision to reject the general master's recommendation to increase support payments, holding that the master's recommendations were merely advisory rather than binding findings of fact.
The trial judge did not err in declining to follow the master's recommendations. The recommendations of a general master are merely advisory and may not be considered findings of fact. The trial judge's order denying the modification petition is supported by competent evidence and is within his discretion in such matters.
[1] Recommendations of a general master are advisory and do not constitute findings of fact.
[2] A trial court's order denying a petition to increase child support will be affirmed if supported by competent evidence and within the bounds of discretion.
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“We hold that the recommendations of the general master were, in this case, merely advisory and may not be considered findings of fact.”
Establishes the central holding that a general master's recommendations do not constitute binding findings of fact and are advisory only.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharlotte Vogel sought to modify a child support order to increase payments for two children, Mark Robert Vogel and Susan. A general master conducted …
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 Child Support Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying the former wife’s petition to increase child support. We are here concerned with a claimed error of the trial judge in deciding the merits of the petition upon the record made before a general master and in declining to follow the recommendations of the master.1 We hold that the recommendations of the general master were, in this case, merely advisory and may not be considered findings of fact.2 We do not pass upon the effect of findings of fact made by a general master under the administrative order used in this case.
In the instant case, each party filed exceptions to the master’s report. After hearing, the court denied the exceptions and then ordered:
**
“3. The Court has considered the Petition for Modification filed by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and after due deliberation, considering all the evidence, both of said Motions for Modification are denied, it being the intent of this Court that the responsibilities and the obligations of the parties shall remain as they existed by the last Order of the Court, entered prior to the most recent Petitions for Modification.
“4. Each party shall bear his own attorney’s fees and costs.”
**
Our review of the record before us demonstrates that the order made by the circuit judge is supported by competent evidence and is within the bounds of his discretion in such matters. See Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, Fla.App.1961, 127 So. 2d 137, 2 A.L.R.3d 592 and Bordman v. Bordman, Fla.App.1970, 231 So. 2d 543.
Affirmed.
. In 1973, the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit issued an Administrative Order pursuant to rule 1.490 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure appointing a General Master to conduct post-decretal hearings on child support, maintenance and alimony, and subsequently authorized hearings on any matter arising under Chapter 61 of the Florida Statutes or such other proceedings as the court might direct from time to time. Administrative Orders 73-15; 73-28 ; 74-27. The record of this case does not contain a copy of the administrative order and the appellant has not moved to supplement the record in this particular. . The master’s report states the history of the case; the present marital status of the parties; the net worth of the parties as shown by their financial statements filed. The last paragraph of the report is as follows :
* * * * *
“7. That considering the testimony as presented, the evidence and exhibits, and from a review of the Court files herein, the Master recommends as follows:
“A. That support for Mark Robert Vogel be increased from $40.00 per week to $70.00 per week and that support for Susan be increased from $40.00 to $50.00 per week
“B. That the Court order partial attorneys fees to be assessed against the father in the amount of $350.00, and that such be paid within a reasonable time to Herman Cohen, Attorney for the mother. That all other and prior orders of this Court not inconsistent herewith be reaffirmed.”
sjc * * * *
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schafroth v. Schafroth, 610 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…s was the case, the master’s determination — unlike a finding of fact on disputed evidence — did not bind the trial court, which was, to the contrary, required to set it aside. See Mounce v. Mounce, 459 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Vogel v. Vogel, 323 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 605 (Fla.1976); Bergh v. Bergh, 127 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961), cert. denied, 133 So. 2d 323 (Fla.1961). Affirmed.…
-
Ciccarelli v. Ciccarelli, 352 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…the rehabilitative alimony should only run for a period of two years rather than three years. We find such change consistent with the findings of fact of the Master and certainly within the bounds of the chancellor’s discretion. See Vogel v. Vogel, 323 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Likewise we find the variance in the amount of the attorney’s fee from that recommended by the Master to be consistent with the findings of fact contained by the Master’s report. For these reasons the Final Judgment below is AFF…
-
Tamela Mounce v. Mounce, 459 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. The lower court erroneously felt itself bound1 to approve the master’s recommendations concerning the appropriate remedies to be adopted in the enforcement and effectuation of its own prior final judgment in the case. Vogel v. Vogel, 323 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 605 (Fla.1976) (trial court not required to follow advisory recommendations which were not findings of fact). As was held in Bergh v. Bergh, 127 So. 2d 481, 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961), cert. denied, 133 So.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burton Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 127 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Bordman v. Bordman, 231 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)