Barbera v. Barbera

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barbera v. Barbera

559 So. 2d 112, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2573, 1990 WL 45273

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 18, 1990

DocketNo. 89-0340

StatusPublished

This text of 559 So. 2d 112 (Barbera v. Barbera) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barbera v. Barbera, 559 So. 2d 112, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2573, 1990 WL 45273 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, John Joseph Barbera, Sr., seeks reversal of an order of the trial court confirming the report of a general master following an evidentiary hearing to consider appellant’s petition to modify the final judgment regarding child support and the appellee’s petition for contempt and other related matters.

Appellee has not favored us with a brief or oral argument. However, we have fully considered appellant’s pro se brief and examined the record carefully to determine whether there was substantial competent evidence to support the conclusion of the general master. Although there is conflict between the parties as to several of the issues, there is sufficient evidence to support the master’s conclusion. Therefore, the trial judge was obligated by law to confirm the report and we are likewise obligated to affirm the judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, John Joseph Barbera, Sr., seeks reversal of an order of the trial court confirming the report of a general master following an evidentiary hearing to consider appellant’s petition to modify the final judgment regarding child support and the appellee’s petition for contempt and other related matters.

Appellee has not favored us with a brief or oral argument. However, we have fully considered appellant’s pro se brief and examined the record carefully to determine whether there was substantial competent evidence to support the conclusion of the general master. Although there is conflict between the parties as to several of the issues, there is sufficient evidence to support the master’s conclusion. Therefore, the trial judge was obligated by law to confirm the report and we are likewise obligated to affirm the judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 So. 2d 112, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2573, 1990 WL 45273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbera-v-barbera-fladistctapp-1990.