GARY L. CALAHAN, APPELLANT,
v.
HEIDI CALAHAN, 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 father challenged the circuit court's rejection of a magistrate's recommendation to reduce his child support and alimony obligations based on a material decrease in income. The appellate court held that the magistrate failed to make a critical finding regarding whether the income reduction was contemplated in the original marital settlement agreement and remanded for the magistrate to address this factual dispute.
The magistrate failed to make a finding on the critical issue of whether the income reduction was contemplated. The record evidence is in conflict on this issue and would support a finding either way. The circuit court therefore improperly resolved a disputed factual matter without the magistrate first making the required finding.
[1] A circuit court reviewing a magistrate's recommended order may not make independent factual findings if the magistrate failed to make a finding on a linchpin issue.
[2] When the record evidence is in conflict on a disputed factual issue, a circuit court should remand the case to the magistrate to make a factual finding.
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“when reviewing magistrate's recommended order, circuit court may not make independent factual findings”
Establishes the legal standard that the circuit court violated by substituting its own factual conclusion for the magistrate's determination.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant's income materially changed for the worse after entry of the final judgment incorporating a marital settlement agreement. The magistrate rec…
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 Marital Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
[*359] PER CURIAM.
After the magistrate recommended that Appellant’s child support and alimony obligations be reduced, based on a change of circumstances, the circuit court rejected the magistrate’s recommended order. Appellant challenges the order of the circuit court.
It is without dispute that Appellant’s income materially changed for the worse after the final judgment was entered. What is disputed is whether the reduction in income was contemplated by the parties at the time Appellant executed the marital settlement agreement that was incorporated into the final judgment. The magistrate failed to make a finding on this linchpin issue. Upon reviewing the record, the circuit court concluded that the evidence indisputably compels the conclusion that the change was contemplated. Based on that conclusion, the circuit court entered judgment for Appellee.
On appeal, Appellant argues that the magistrate implicitly addressed the factual issue of whether the change was contemplated, and the circuit court improperly substituted its factual finding for that of the magistrate. See Anderson v. Anderson, 736 So. 2d 49, 50-51 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (when reviewing magistrate’s recommended order, circuit court may not make independent factual findings). Ap-pellee argues that the issue was not addressed by the magistrate and the circuit court acted properly because the fact is not disputed in the record. We disagree with both arguments. We think that the magistrate failed to make a finding on this point. Further, our reading of the record leads us to conclude that the record evidence is in conflict on this issue and would support a finding either way. In light of our conclusion, the parties agree that the appropriate disposition is to remand this case to the circuit court with instructions
that it remand it to the magistrate to make a factual finding on this disputed issue.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ORFINGER, TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. Maloch, 287 So. 3d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…se v. Dewhurst, 935 So. 2d 575, 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). If a magistrate fails to make a required finding, and the record is conflicting, the trial court should remand the case to the magistrate to make the necessary findings. See Calahan v. Calahan, 979 So. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). In order to modify alimony, the moving party must show that: (1) there was a substantial change in circumstances; (2) the change was not contemplated at the time of the final judgment of dissolution; and (3) the change is…
Authorities Cited
- Anderson v. Anderson, 736 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)