Berkheimer v. Berkheimer, 466 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Berkheimer v. Berkheimer, 466 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the rule was designed to safeguard the due process rights of the parties.”
25 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: MARIO OLIVA v. IVON OLIVA (fladistctapp, 2023-03-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) MARIO OLIVA v. IVON OLIVA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the rule was designed to safeguard the due process rights of the parties.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) WG Evergreen Woods SH, LLC v. Fares
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Furthermore, no local rule or local practice can eliminate the rule 1.190(f) hearing. “[T]he courts of this state are not empowered to develop local rules which contravene those promulgated by the Supreme Court.” Berkheimer v. Berkheimer, 466 So.2d 1219, 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Obando v. Bradshaw
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
Nor may courts devise practices which skirt the requirements of duly promulgated rules.” Payret v. Adams, 471 So.2d 218, 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (quoting Berkheimer v. Berkheimer, 466 So.2d 1219, 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jansen v. Jansen
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
See Knorr v. Knorr, 751 So.2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Cox v. Cox, 490 So.2d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Berkheimer v. Berkheimer, 466 So.2d 1219, 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Payret v. Adams
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
In Berkheimer v. Berkheimer, 466 So.2d 1219, 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), we noted that "courts of this state are not empowered to develop local rules which contravene those promulgated by the Supreme Court.
cited Cited "see" Plevy v. Plevy
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Plevy v. Plevy, 466 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." A.T.N. v. Florida Department of Children & Family Services
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Berkheimer v. Berkheimer, 466 So.2d 1219, 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (finding Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(h)’s providing that, if the parties do not file exceptions to a magistrate’s report within ten days from the time it was served on them, the court shall take appropriate action, "indicates that the trial court is not at liberty to act upon the master's report during the 10-day period”).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Dehler v. Dehler
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Berkheimer v. Berkheimer, 466 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Kay v. Kay, 430 So.2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); and Wyman v. Wyman, 430 So.2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Elliott v. Elliott
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Plevy v. Plevy, 466 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
Linda J. BERKHEIMER, Petitioner,
v.
Edward R. BERKHEIMER, Respondent.
85-45.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Apr 10, 1985.
466 So. 2d 1219
Hurley.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published

[*1220] G. Ware Cornell, Jr. of McCune, Hiaasen, Crum, Ferris & Gardner, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Joel L. Kirschbaum of Esler & Kirschbaum, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for respondent.

HURLEY, Judge.

By petition for writ of certiorari we are asked to review an order denying the wife's motion to stay implementation of a master's report pending hearing on the wife's exceptions. We grant the writ and quash the order.

A general master's report, dated January 2, 1985, recommended: (1) that the husband have temporary custody of the parties' minor children; (2) that the husband and children have exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home; and (3) that the wife vacate the marital home by 5:00 p.m. on January 4, 1985. The wife moved to stay implementation of the master's recommendations until the trial court could hear her exceptions. The court denied the motion to stay and, as a temporary measure, adopted the master's recommendations. The wife subsequently filed timely exceptions to the master's report.

This court has consistently recognized the substantial contribution made by general masters. "Master's proceedings contribute greatly to the administration of justice by providing expeditious resolutions of disputes, a task which is otherwise difficult in view of crowded court dockets." Berk v. Berk, 423 So.2d 1018, 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Yet, we have been quick to point out that "[w]hile the use of masters has a long tradition in our jurisprudence, it has always been tightly circumscribed and limited." Kay v. Kay, 430 So.2d 532, 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

The relevant limitations are contained in rule 1.490(h), Fla.R.Civ.P., which states:

The master shall file his report and serve copies on the parties. The parties may serve exceptions to the report within 10 days from the time it is served on them. If no exceptions are filed within the period, the court shall take appropriate action on the report. If exceptions are filed, they shall be heard on reasonable notice by either party.

Kay v. Kay, supra, stands for the proposition that the provisions of rule 1.490(h), Fla.R.Civ.P., are mandatory and exclusive. See also Wyman v. Wyman, 430 So.2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The rule was designed to safeguard the due process rights of the parties and, consequently, its provisions must be followed scrupulously. Thus, the parties are entitled to receive a copy of the master's report and may serve exceptions to the report within 10 days from the time it is served on them. The plain language of the rule, ["If no exceptions are filed within the period, the court shall take appropriate action on the report."] indicates that the trial court is not at liberty to act upon the master's report during the 10-day period. Moreover, if timely exceptions are filed, the court may not act on the report until the court has ruled on the exceptions. Thus, in Monyek v. Monyek, 453 So.2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the court reversed a final judgment which had been entered on a master's report prior to a hearing on timely filed exceptions.[*1221] In the same vein, we hold that the court below was not free to adopt the master's recommendations, albeit as a temporary measure, without first conducting a hearing on the wife's exceptions. The rule's language is unambiguous and comprehensive; it does not provide an exception for temporary measures.

We recognize that the press of business has led to a different practice. Immediate implementation followed by later review has become standard operating procedure in some circuits. But the courts of this state are not empowered to develop local rules which contravene those promulgated by the Supreme Court. State v. Darnell, 335 So.2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Nor may courts devise practices which skirt the requirements of duly promulgated rules. Inasmuch as we conclude that the court's practice in the case at bar fails to comply with rule 1.490(h), Fla.R. Civ.P., and thereby constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law, we grant the writ and quash the order denying a stay.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and LETTS, J., concur.