BEVERLY A. CLAUGHTON, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD N. CLAUGHTON, JR., 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 trial court's order that sustained a husband's exceptions to a special master's recommendations regarding alimony and child support. The court found that without a record of the proceedings, the trial court could not determine the master's findings were clearly erroneous.
Yes, the trial court erred. Without a record of the proceedings, the court could not determine if the special master's findings were clearly erroneous or if the master misconceived the legal effect of the evidence.
[1] A chancellor should approve and adopt the findings and recommendations of a special master unless they are clearly erroneous or the master has misconceived the legal effe…
[2] When no record of proceedings accompanies a special master's report and exceptions, a chancellor cannot determine if the master's recommendations were clearly erroneous o…
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 intelligence“The findings of fact and recommendations of a special master should be approved and adopted by the chancellor unless clearly erroneous or it appears that the master has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence.”
This quote establishes the standard of review for a chancellor's decision regarding a special master's report.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA special master recommended that temporary alimony and child support remain unchanged, with the husband also paying the wife's share of mortgage and …
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 Temporary Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Beverly Claughton, appeals an order sustaining her husband’s exceptions to the findings and recommendations of the special master. Beverly Claughton was awarded $2,500 per month temporary alimony and child support and approximately one year later both Beverly and her husband, Edward, filed petitions for modification of the temporary alimony. They also requested that the matters raised in their modification petitions be referred to a general master and the chancellor entered an order granting their request. The general master conducted a hearing and filed his report recommending that the chancellor’s previous order awarding $2,500 temporary alimony and support remain unchanged with the exception that Edward should, in addition to the alimony and support award, pay Beverly’s share of the mortgage payments on the Hound Ears vacation condominium and her investment expenses on the Saga Bay and Crandon Boulevard properties. No record of the proceedings was attached to the report. Edward filed exceptions to the report and after a hearing, the chancellor entered an order sustaining his exceptions to the master’s recommendations. We reverse.
The findings of fact and recommendations of a special master should be approved and adopted by the chancellor unless clearly erroneous or it appears that the master has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence. See Hopping v. Lovejoy, 53 So. 2d 704 (Fla.1951); Moncrief v. Hall, 63 So. 2d 640 (Fla.1953); Frank v. Frank, 75 So. 2d 282 (Fla.1954); Hartnett v. Lotauro, 82 So. 2d 362 (Fla.1955); Holland v. Gross, 89 So. 2d 255 (Fla.1956). In the case at bar no record of the proceedings accompanied the general master’s report or the filed exceptions. There being no record upon which to determine that the general master was clearly erroneous in his recommendations or that he misconceived the legal effect of the evidence, the chancellor should have affirmed the recommendations.
Accordingly, the order sustaining exceptions is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
de Clements v. de Clements, 662 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…urt can review the Master's findings to the extent that this rule is applied in circumstances where the Master has failed to file a complete record of the evidence with his or her report. See, e.g., Ben-Hain; Ferris; Sitomer; Claughton v. Claughton, 347 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).…
-
Ferris v. Ferris, 417 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…court denied her a full hearing. She did not file a transcript of the proceedings before the general master. Without a basis on which to determine the master erred, the court may not sustain exceptions to the master’s report. Claughton v. Claughton, 347 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The functions and purposes of a motion for rehearing have been thoroughly discussed in Cole v. Cole, 130 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961): The nature of a rehearing is revealed in several opinions of the Supreme Court of Flo…
-
Bloom v. Bloom, 414 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ted by a trial judge unless clearly erroneous, or it appears that the master has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence. Mann v. Mann, 399 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Shaw v. Shaw, 369 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Claughton v. Claughton, 347 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Kalmutz v. Kalmutz, 299 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). In our view, the trial court abused its discretion by rejecting certain portions of the general master’s report. Although the trial court’s order recites that the master erro…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bernardo de la Pena v. SC Mota Assocs. Ltd. P'ship (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Holland v. Gross, 89 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1956)
- Frank v. Belmont Frank, 75 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1954)
- Moncrief v. Hall, 63 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1953)
- Vaughn v. Mandis, 53 So.2d 704 (Fla. 1951)
- Hartnett v. Lotauro, 82 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1955)