Opinion
Case No. 6D23-97
02-17-2023
David R. EDMONDS, Appellant, v. Rachel EDMONDS, Appellee.
Jennifer Reisler, of Jennifer E. Reisler, P.A., Lake Worth, for Appellant. Sonja A. Jean, of Davis Smith & Jean, LLC, Coral Gables, for Appellee.
Jennifer Reisler, of Jennifer E. Reisler, P.A., Lake Worth, for Appellant.
Sonja A. Jean, of Davis Smith & Jean, LLC, Coral Gables, for Appellee.
MIZE, J.
This appeal arises from a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The Appellee and former wife, Rachel Edmonds ("Former Wife"), filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage on October 21, 2019. The trial judge referred the case to a General Magistrate. The magistrate conducted a trial and submitted a Report and Recommended Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage (the "Initial Report") to the trial judge. The Initial Report rejected a request from the Appellant and former husband, David Edmonds ("Former Husband"), to impute income to Former Wife beyond her actual earnings and recommended awarding Former Wife durational alimony in the amount of $1,500.00 per month for five years. Both parties filed timely exceptions to the Initial Report.
This case was transferred from the Second District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023.
The trial judge held a hearing on the parties’ respective exceptions and entered an Order on Exceptions to General Magistrate's Report and Recommendations (the "Initial Order") which: (1) upheld the magistrate's finding that Former Wife was not underemployed; (2) found that the Initial Report did not provide support in the record for the magistrate's award of durational alimony in the amount of $1,500.00 per month; and (3) remanded the case "back to the Magistrate for a supplemental order demonstrating the factual basis and/or mathematical calculations that are supported by the evidence adduced at trial or through other equitable means and considerations that were relied upon by the Magistrate in reaching his determination that $1,500 is the appropriate amount of durational alimony."
On remand, the magistrate entered a Supplemental Report and Recommendation on the Issue of Alimony in the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage (the "Supplemental Report"). In the Supplemental Report, the magistrate found that Former Wife's income was $1,971.00 per month, her necessary expenses were $3,461.32 per month, and that, therefore, Former Wife's need for alimony was $1,490.32 per month. Both parties again filed timely exceptions.
Without holding a hearing on either party's exceptions to the Supplemental Report, the trial court entered a Supplemental Order on Exceptions to General Magistrate's Report and Recommendation (the "Supplemental Order") that ordered Former Husband to pay alimony in the amount of $3,929.00 per month for five years rather than the $1,500.00 per month recommended by the Magistrate.
Former Husband appeals the Initial Order on the ground that the trial court erred by adopting the magistrate's finding that Former Wife was not underemployed. Former Husband appeals the Supplemental Order on multiple grounds, including that the trial court failed to hold a hearing on the parties’ respective exceptions to the Supplemental Report as required by the version of Rule 12.490(f) of the Family Law Rules of Procedure in effect at that time.
The Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 12.490 effective April 1, 2022. See In re Amends. to Fla. Family Law Rules of Procedure 12.490 & 12.491, & Forms 12.920(a)-(c) , 346 So. 3d 1053, 1054 (Fla. 2022).
As to the Initial Order, we find no error and affirm. As to the Supplemental Order, the trial court erred by entering an order on the Supplemental Report without holding a hearing on the parties’ respective exceptions to the Supplemental Report.
The version of Rule 12.490(f) of the Family Law Rules of Procedure in effect during the lower court proceedings provided:
The general magistrate must file the report and recommendations and serve copies on all parties. The parties may file exceptions to the report within 10 days from the time it is served on them...If exceptions are filed, they must be heard on reasonable notice by either party or the court.
Thus, where a party timely files exceptions to a magistrate's report, it is reversible error for a trial court to fail to conduct a hearing on the exceptions before entering an order on the report. See Gutierrez v. Gutierrez , 48 So. 3d 118, 119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing Simmons v. Simmons , 16 So. 3d 878 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) ); Jean v. Jean , 320 So. 3d 313, 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) ; Langsetmo v. Metza , 306 So. 3d 112, 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) ; Erskine v. Erskine , 262 So. 3d 223, 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) ; Cazi v. Prophete , 130 So. 3d 723, 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). Because the trial court failed to hold a hearing on the parties’ respective exceptions to the Supplemental Report, the trial court's Supplemental Order must be reversed and remanded to the trial court to hold a hearing on the parties’ exceptions.
We are not bound by our sister courts’ precedent or any prior Second or Fifth District panel decisions. See Pardo v. State , 596 So. 2d 665, 667 (Fla. 1992) ("[A]s between District Courts of Appeal, a sister district's opinion is merely persuasive.") (quoting State v. Hayes , 333 So. 2d 51, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) ). However, our sister courts were correct to hold that the prior version of Rule 12.490(f) required trial courts to hold a hearing on timely filed exceptions to a Magistrate's report.
Since the trial court's failure to hold a hearing on the parties’ exceptions renders the Supplemental Order deficient, we do not address the Former Husband's other points on appeal. At the hearing to be held on remand, the Former Husband may address these arguments to the trial court.
Based on the foregoing:
(1) The Order on Exceptions to General Magistrate's Report and Recommendations entered on July 20, 2021 is AFFIRMED.
(2) The Supplemental Order on Exceptions to General Magistrate's Report and Recommendations entered on August 3, 2021 is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED for further proceedings.
NARDELLA, J., concurs.
COHEN, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
COHEN, J., concurring specially.
I fully agree with the affirmance of the trial court's ruling on the exceptions to the Report and Recommended Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage (Initial Report), as well as reversal for the failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the exceptions to the Supplemental Report and Recommendation on the Issue of Alimony in the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage (Supplemental Report). Where I diverge from the majority is in their failure to address the award of child support.
After the trial court increased Former Husband's alimony obligation, Former Husband filed a timely motion for rehearing raising several issues. In addition to challenging the trial court's failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on the exceptions to the Supplemental Report, Former Husband also challenged the court's failure to adjust the award of child support, in light of the increase in alimony. That motion was denied, and this appeal followed.
The trial court's denial of Former Husband's request to adjust the child support award after an increase in the award of alimony was erroneous. Kranz v. Kranz , 737 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) ; Christensen v. Christensen , 147 So. 3d. 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ; Weiser v. Weiser , 782 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ; see also § 61.30(2)(a)(9), Fla. Stat. (2022).
I understand that in sending this case back for an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge will have an opportunity to rectify that error. While it is possible that the trial court might correct this error on remand, the court had the opportunity to do so following the Former Husband's Motion for Rehearing and declined. This issue was raised in this appeal and fully briefed. Failing to address the matter now risks the possibility of further appeal.
There are several reasons to issue a written opinion, one of which is to give guidance to trial court judges.