BARBARA LOU CICCARELLI, APPELLANT,
v.
VIRGIL CICCARELLI, 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.
In this divorce case, Barbara Lou Ciccarelli appeals from a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Virgil Ciccarelli. The appellant challenges the trial judge's deviation from the Special Master's recommendations regarding rehabilitative alimony duration and attorney's fees, though the visitation issue became moot before oral argument.
The court affirmed the Final Judgment, holding that the trial judge's reductions were consistent with the Special Master's findings of fact and fell within the judge's discretion. The court emphasized that while a trial judge should not overturn a master's findings when credibility and witness demeanor are at issue, the trial judge may properly modify recommendations on matters of law and discretionary awards that do not depend on conflicting testimony about witness credibility.
[1] A trial court should not overturn a special master's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, especially when witness veracity is at issue.
[2] A trial court has discretion to modify a special master's recommendations regarding rehabilitative alimony duration and attorney's fees when the modifications are consist…
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“where there is conflicting testimony and the veracity of the witnesses is a question to be considered that the master, who has seen and heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor while testifying, is in a better position than the trial court to determine such conflicts and that the trial court should not, in such cases, overturn the findings of the master unless they are clearly erroneous”
Establishes the standard of review for a master's findings when witness credibility is at issue—the trial court should not overturn them unless clearly erroneous.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarbara Lou Ciccarelli and Virgil Ciccarelli were parties to a dissolution of marriage case. A Special Master took testimony and made recommendations …
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 Chancellor'S Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLER, ROBERT P., Associate Judge.
This is an appeal by the appellant-wife of a Final Judgment in a dissolution case wherein the Circuit Judge did not follow the exact recommendations of the Special Master who took the testimony below.
Originally appellant contested the trial judge’s failure to follow the Special Master’s recommendations concerning visitation rights and the major portion of the briefs are concerned with that point. However at oral argument appellant’s counsel has announced such matter as being now moot in that a subsequent order has been entered by the trial court allowing visitation. The other two variances between the Master’s report and the Final Judgment have to do with the length of time for the payment of rehabilitative alimony and the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded appellant’s counsel.
The Special Master recommended payment of rehabilitative alimony for a period of three years, but the Final Judgment though ordering payment of rehabilitative alimony in the same amount per month provided that it shall only run two years. The Master further recommended payment of the attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,600.00 to appellant’s counsel and the Final Judgment provided that appellee should pay $2,500.00 “in addition to any temporary fees already awarded.”
The appellant contends that the modifications of the recommendations made by the Special Master were made by the trial judge without his having actually reviewed the testimony heard by the General Master. In fact appellant contends, and the record bears out, that the partial transcript filed as a portion of the record on appeal was not transcribed until after the entry of the Final Judgment.
This court is certainly aware that where there is conflicting testimony and the veracity of the witnesses is a question to be considered that the master, who has seen and heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor while testifying, is in a better position than the trial court to determine such conflicts and that the trial court should not, in such cases, overturn the findings of the master unless they are clearly erroneous. See Harmon v. Harmon, 40 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1949), and Kalmutz v. Kalmutz, 299 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
Certainly the issues argued in the briefs concerning visitation rights would be governed by the above principle of law. However that issue is now apparently moot.
With regard to the remaining matters the trial court had before it the Special Master’s findings which included facts concerning the parties’ education, income or capacity to obtain income, their professions, their assets and the need of the appellant. There is no showing that any issue existed concerning these facts. The chancellor merely decided from these facts that 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 AFFIRMED.
ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fodor v. Fodor, 379 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…because the master is in a better position to make determinations of fact, having seen the witnesses and listened to the testimony. The trial court will not overturn the master’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Ciccarelli v. Ciccarelli, 352 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). A review of the report of the general master shows that the legal effect of the evidence was not misconceived. The trial court, therefore, was eminently correct in it’s order of February 21, 1979. Appellant having failed to de…
-
Hemminger v. Hemminger, 391 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…he legal effect of the evidence. Fodor v. Fodor, 379 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The trial court should not overturn a master’s factual findings unless they are clearly unsupported by the evidence and clearly erroneous. Ciccarelli v. Ciccarelli, 352 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Here, there was evidence in the record before the master supporting the conclusion that there had been no significant reduction in income. The appellant/wife had moved for contempt for the appellee’s failure to pay alimony arrea…
-
Linn v. Linn, 523 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…not an unanticipated change in circumstances that was permanent in nature. A trial court is bound by a master’s factual findings and recommendations unless they are clearly unsupported by the evidence and clearly erroneous. Ciccarelli v. Ciccarelli, 352 So. 2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). The record herein supports the special master’s recommendation. While it is evident that the former husband may be experiencing some temporary cash-flow problems arising from the manner in which he has elected to expend…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harmon v. Harmon, 40 So.2d 209 (Fla. 1949)
- Kalmutz v. Kalmutz, 299 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Vogel v. Vogel, 323 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)