Catinella v. Catinella

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Catinella v. Catinella

471 So. 2d 1362, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1625, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14883

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 2, 1985

DocketNo. 84-2355

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 471 So. 2d 1362 (Catinella v. Catinella) 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

Catinella v. Catinella, 471 So. 2d 1362, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1625, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14883 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order appealed for two reasons. First, we agree with appellant that, in the absence of record evidence, the trial court erred in sustaining exceptions to the report of the general master. Without a basis upon which to determine that the master clearly erred in his recommendations or that he misconceived the legal effect of the evidence, the trial court improperly set aside the general master’s report. Ferris v. Ferris, 417 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Claughton v. Claughton, 347 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

On remand, we direct the trial court to conduct further proceedings concerning the wife’s right to a judgment on the husband’s support arrearages. The trial court’s determination may be predicated upon either reconsideration of the testimony before the general master or upon the presentation to the trial court of additional testimony.

Second, the trial court erred in modifying the husband’s other support obligations because the issue of modification was not raised by the parties. See Kordak v. Williams, 404 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Sardinas v. Sardinas, 401 So.2d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order appealed for two reasons. First, we agree with appellant that, in the absence of record evidence, the trial court erred in sustaining exceptions to the report of the general master. Without a basis upon which to determine that the master clearly erred in his recommendations or that he misconceived the legal effect of the evidence, the trial court improperly set aside the general master’s report. Ferris v. Ferris, 417 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Claughton v. Claughton, 347 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

On remand, we direct the trial court to conduct further proceedings concerning the wife’s right to a judgment on the husband’s support arrearages. The trial court’s determination may be predicated upon either reconsideration of the testimony before the general master or upon the presentation to the trial court of additional testimony.

Second, the trial court erred in modifying the husband’s other support obligations because the issue of modification was not raised by the parties. See Kordak v. Williams, 404 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Sardinas v. Sardinas, 401 So.2d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 So. 2d 1362, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1625, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catinella-v-catinella-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack