Schafroth v. Schafroth

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schafroth v. Schafroth

610 So. 2d 649, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13221, 1992 WL 367339

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 15, 1992

DocketNo. 92-849

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 610 So. 2d 649 (Schafroth v. Schafroth) 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

Schafroth v. Schafroth, 610 So. 2d 649, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13221, 1992 WL 367339 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The general master recommended granting the ex-husband’s motion to dismiss the appellee’s petition for modification of the alimony provision of the parties’ 1989 “Amended Marital Settlement Agreement.” We conclude that the trial court properly sustained her exceptions to that report on the ground that it embodied an erroneous conclusion of law. See § 61.14, Fla.Stat. (1991); Feldman v. Feldman, 317 So.2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Because this was the case, the master’s determination — unlike a finding of fact on disputed evidence — did not bind the trial court, which was, to the contrary, required to set it aside. See Mounce v. Mounce, 459 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Vogel v. Vogel, 323 So.2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 605 (Fla.1976); Bergh v. Bergh, 127 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961), cert. denied, 133 So.2d 323 (Fla.1961).

Affirmed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The general master recommended granting the ex-husband’s motion to dismiss the appellee’s petition for modification of the alimony provision of the parties’ 1989 “Amended Marital Settlement Agreement.” We conclude that the trial court properly sustained her exceptions to that report on the ground that it embodied an erroneous conclusion of law. See § 61.14, Fla.Stat. (1991); Feldman v. Feldman, 317 So.2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Because this was the case, the master’s determination — unlike a finding of fact on disputed evidence — did not bind the trial court, which was, to the contrary, required to set it aside. See Mounce v. Mounce, 459 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Vogel v. Vogel, 323 So.2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 605 (Fla.1976); Bergh v. Bergh, 127 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961), cert. denied, 133 So.2d 323 (Fla.1961).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

610 So. 2d 649, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13221, 1992 WL 367339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schafroth-v-schafroth-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack