Simmons v. Simmons

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Simmons v. Simmons

16 So. 3d 878, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 8237, 2009 WL 1815243

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 26, 2009

Docket5D08-2138

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 16 So. 3d 878 (Simmons v. Simmons) 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

Simmons v. Simmons, 16 So. 3d 878, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 8237, 2009 WL 1815243 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

SAWAYA, J.

In this appeal of a final judgment rendered in a dissolution of marriage proceeding wherein the trial court adopted all of the recommendations and findings of the magistrate, we reverse because the trial court failed to hold a hearing on Husband’s timely filed exceptions to the magistrate’s report before entering the final judgment. See Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.490(f) (providing that if exceptions are filed to a general magistrate’s report, they “shall be heard on reasonable notice by either party or the court”); Yoxsimer v. Yoxsimer, 918 So.2d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that rule 12.490(f) requires a mandatory hearing on timely filed exceptions to a magistrate’s report and explaining that this rule derives from Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(h), which also requires a mandatory hearing on timely filed exceptions to a magistrate’s report); Knorr v. Knorr, 751 So.2d 64, 65-66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (observing that Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure 12.490(f) and 12.492(g) derive from Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(h) and that all three contain substantially the same provisions requiring a mandatory hearing on exceptions to a master’s report and recommendation); McBride v. McBride, 637 So.2d 938, 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (“First, the trial judge erred when he denied Wife’s timely objections to the master’s amended report without an evi-dentiary hearing.”); see also L.P. v. State, *879 995 So.2d 1140, 1141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“[W]e write to re-emphasis [sic] the requirement that a hearing must be held on timely-fíled exceptions to a magistrate’s report.”); Burnstine v. Townley, 976 So.2d 624, 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“[T]he trial court erred when it denied his exceptions without first conducting a hearing.”) (citing Yoxsimer); Collado v. Pavlow, 951 So.2d 69, 70 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (same).

Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment under review and remand this case to the trial court to conduct an appropriate hearing on the exceptions to the magistrate’s report filed by Husband.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

SAWAYA, J.

In this appeal of a final judgment rendered in a dissolution of marriage proceeding wherein the trial court adopted all of the recommendations and findings of the magistrate, we reverse because the trial court failed to hold a hearing on Husband’s timely filed exceptions to the magistrate’s report before entering the final judgment. See Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.490(f) (providing that if exceptions are filed to a general magistrate’s report, they “shall be heard on reasonable notice by either party or the court”); Yoxsimer v. Yoxsimer, 918 So.2d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that rule 12.490(f) requires a mandatory hearing on timely filed exceptions to a magistrate’s report and explaining that this rule derives from Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(h), which also requires a mandatory hearing on timely filed exceptions to a magistrate’s report); Knorr v. Knorr, 751 So.2d 64, 65-66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (observing that Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure 12.490(f) and 12.492(g) derive from Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(h) and that all three contain substantially the same provisions requiring a mandatory hearing on exceptions to a master’s report and recommendation); McBride v. McBride, 637 So.2d 938, 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (“First, the trial judge erred when he denied Wife’s timely objections to the master’s amended report without an evi-dentiary hearing.”); see also L.P. v. State, *879 995 So.2d 1140, 1141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“[W]e write to re-emphasis [sic] the requirement that a hearing must be held on timely-fíled exceptions to a magistrate’s report.”); Burnstine v. Townley, 976 So.2d 624, 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“[T]he trial court erred when it denied his exceptions without first conducting a hearing.”) (citing Yoxsimer); Collado v. Pavlow, 951 So.2d 69, 70 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (same).

Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment under review and remand this case to the trial court to conduct an appropriate hearing on the exceptions to the magistrate’s report filed by Husband.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 So. 3d 878, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 8237, 2009 WL 1815243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simmons-v-simmons-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack