From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moskowitz v. Moskowitz

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jan 13, 1993
611 So. 2d 615 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

Summary

In Moskowitz, we held that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(h) requires that a trial court may take appropriate action on a general master's report only after the court hears timely filed exceptions.

Summary of this case from Scott v. Scott

Opinion

No. 92-2387.

January 13, 1993.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Broward County, Robert Scott, J.

Wm. David Newman, Jr. of the Law Offices of Val L. Osinski, P.A., Coral Springs, for appellant.

Steven W. Effman of Frank, Effman Weinberg, P.A., Plantation, for appellees.


The trial court lacked the discretion to enter an order ratifying a general master's report just two days after its entry. The provisions of rule 1.490(h), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, are mandatory. The rule authorizes the trial court to take appropriate action on the master's report only if no exceptions are taken within a 10 day period. If exceptions are filed, they are to be heard.

The clear import of the rule is that a trial court may take appropriate action only after the court hears the exceptions. Therefore, it was error to deny appellant's motion to vacate the premature order. Berkheimer v. Berkheimer, 466 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Kay v. Kay, 430 So.2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Cox v. Cox, 490 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Elliott v. Elliott, 478 So.2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Dembrowski v. Dembrowski, 580 So.2d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

We recognize that this issue appears mooted by the trial court's subsequent denial of appellant's exceptions. Appellees argue that a trial court may disregard the clear mandate of the above opinions of this court by simply providing in a premature enforcement order that it is "subject to" any subsequently filed objections. However, we decline to read such an exception into the established rule, particularly given the history of this court's repeated insistence that the purpose of the rule be honored. Therefore, the order is reversed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we do also note that we can discern no impediment, on remand, to a reentry of the trial court order after a hearing on appellant's exceptions.

HERSEY and STONE, JJ., and DOWNEY, JAMES C., Senior Judge, concur.


Summaries of

Moskowitz v. Moskowitz

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jan 13, 1993
611 So. 2d 615 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

In Moskowitz, we held that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(h) requires that a trial court may take appropriate action on a general master's report only after the court hears timely filed exceptions.

Summary of this case from Scott v. Scott

In Moskowitz v. Moskowitz, 611 So.2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), we held that a court abused its discretion by failing to wait for the expiration of the ten day period provided for filing exceptions, and instead entering an order two days after the master's report was filed.

Summary of this case from Dehler v. Dehler
Case details for

Moskowitz v. Moskowitz

Case Details

Full title:TED MOSKOWITZ, APPELLANT, v. BARBARA MOSKOWITZ AND ARMOR PEST MANAGEMENT…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Jan 13, 1993

Citations

611 So. 2d 615 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

Citing Cases

Werntz v. Floyd

The court's order of contempt entered on December 7, 2000, without considering the timely filed exceptions,…

Vizzi v. Averza-Vizzi

This appeal is dismissed as untimely. But see Moskowitz v. Moskowitz, 611 So.2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) ;…