De Clements v. De Clements, 93-2599
| Citation | 662 So.2d 1276 |
| Decision Date | 27 September 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-2599,93-2599 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D2207 William DE CLEMENTS, Appellant, v. Constance DE CLEMENTS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edward C. Vining, Jr., Miami, for appellant.
Pepe & Nemire and Thomas F. Pepe, Miami, for appellee.
Renee Goldenberg, Chair-Elect and Deborah Marks, Chair of Amicus Curiae Committee, for The Family Law Section of the Florida Bar.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART, NESBITT, BASKIN, JORGENSON, COPE, LEVY, GERSTEN, GODERICH and GREEN, JJ.
ON HEARING EN BANC
A husband appeals a trial court order affirming and adopting a General Master's Report and Recommendation in a dissolution of marriage case. We reverse because we find that the trial court was not entitled to accept and ratify the General Master's report, since the report at issue was filed by the Master without a written record of the evidence, and was therefore a defective report in derogation of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(f). We have set this matter for en banc consideration because it presents unsettled issues regarding the record-keeping duties and responsibilities of Masters pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(f), and because several of our decisions interpreting Rule 1.490(f) need to be harmonized. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.331(a).
The appellee Constance De Clements (hereinafter "the wife") filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. Thereafter, the appellant William De Clements (hereinafter "the husband") filed an Answer and Counter-petition for Dissolution of Marriage. The trial court entered an order referring the case to a General Master. The General Master held four hearings and entered a Report and Recommendation in August of 1993. After receiving the General Master's report, the husband filed exceptions to the report with the trial court. Upon finding out that the General Master had failed to include a written statement of the evidence with the report, the husband filed a motion to re-schedule the hearing on his exceptions. Alternatively, the husband requested that the court remand the case to the General Master for further hearing, or that the trial court grant his exceptions. The court denied the husband's motions and instead entered an order overruling the husband's exceptions and approving and ratifying the General Master's Report and Recommendations. 1 In its order, the trial court found that the parties' attorneys had executed a written waiver of record at one of the hearings held before the General Master, and that a court reporter had been present at the other three hearings which led to the Master's report. Following the entry of the Court's order, the husband moved for rehearing. In opposition to this Motion for Rehearing, the wife filed a copy of the notes taken by the General Master at the aforementioned hearings. These notes consisted of nine hand-written pages of notes which are both incomplete and illegible. The trial court denied the rehearing motion. The husband then filed this timely appeal, challenging the trial court's order which ratifies and adopts the General Master's Report and Recommendations. 2
In order to properly resolve the important issues before us, we must first address and explore the history and rationale of the Masters system and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(f). In doing so, we intend to shed light on the various limitations which have evolved, and which must be enforced, to ensure that the reference process is not abused. These limitations must also be cautiously safeguarded because they assure that the litigant will have his or her case decided, or at least reviewed, by a judge.
The practice of utilizing Masters to assist trial judges in the disposition of cases, also known as the reference process 3, predates the American legal system and has its origins in common law English chancery courts during the reign of King Henry VIII. 4 The subcommittee notes for Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490, and its predecessors, 5 reveal that the reference process in Florida is based mainly on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53; the rule which established the Masters system in federal court. The Advisory Committee Notes for Federal Rule 53, reveal that Rule 53 has its origins in the common law rules of equity which authorized the use of Masters in chancery. 6 In England, chancellors would primarily utilize Masters as assistants to aid in the performance of ministerial functions such as: recording testimony, disposing of property in pursuance of settling judgments, presiding over evidentiary hearings, tabulating damages, and auditing accounts. 7 Despite the usefulness of these Masters, several abuses by the Masters led to the abolition of the reference system in chancery courts midway through the seventeenth century. 8
As with the chancery courts in England, the practice of referring cases to Masters in federal court is and has always been "the exception and not the rule." 9 Nevertheless, despite the lessons of history, congestion in the federal court system spawned the use of Masters in the United States as early as the colonial period. 10 Likewise, the Florida court system began employing Masters to aid judges as early as the mid-nineteenth century. See Slatcoff, 74 So.2d at 62; 21 Fla.L.Prac. Reference Sec. 21 (1964). We cannot deny that Masters, when properly utilized, have been extremely useful in aiding our trial judges with their dockets. The Florida Supreme Court itself has explicitly recognized the value Masters have had throughout Florida's judicial history in aiding, and making more efficient, the judicial process. See Slatcoff, 74 So.2d at 62-63 (). Nonetheless, despite its advantages, the use of Masters in Florida should be tempered by the fact that there is no provision within the Florida Constitution authorizing Masters to perform judicial functions, or authorizing the use of Masters in the disposition of cases. See Art. V, Secs. 5-6, Fla. Const.; Slatcoff v. Dezen, 74 So.2d 59, 61 (Fla.1954). Instead, our Constitution vests original jurisdiction over both equitable and non-equitable matters in the circuit and county courts. Art. V, Secs. 5-6, Fla. Const.
Consequently, although we appreciate that the birth and use of Masters throughout legal history originated as a practical solution to the pressures resulting from burgeoning case loads, we nevertheless recognize that at the other side of this practical coin lie salient concerns regarding the constitutional rights of litigants to have their cases decided by a judge and/or a jury. See La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 77 S.Ct. 309, 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957); Los Angeles Brush Mfg. Corp. v. James, 272 U.S. 701, 47 S.Ct. 286, 71 L.Ed. 481 (1927). These concerns are, and should be, paramount to the judiciary's interest in maintaining an efficient docket. As so eloquently stated by United States District Judge Irving R. Kaufman:
The chief factor militating against unrestricted references in the federal courts is the possibility that it may result in an abdication of the judicial function, exclusively reserved by the Constitution to the federal judiciary. In addition, determinations by a master are made without all of the legal and institutional safeguards intended to assure the selection of a competent judiciary. American policy ... upholds the right of a litigant to have his suit tried before a judge and/or jury if he so requests. Though the absolute right to have the court and jury determine in the first instance all issues in a litigation may in some few instances be sacrificed on grounds of expediency, any such encroachment on this right should be carefully circumscribed.
....
Another major limitation on the employment of masters is the likelihood that a reference will add appreciably to the cost and length of the litigation. Litigants should not be burdened with the costs of referring matters which the judge might easily hear and determine for himself.... The unfortunate result of excessive references to masters in chancery should serve as a deterrent against the adoption of a similar course in the federal courts.
....
Notwithstanding the above, the use of the reference procedure, when placed in proper perspective, can and does serve an invaluable adjunct to the judicial process. When properly employed, a limited reference can lighten congested calendars and provide a more expeditious means for reducing voluminous documents and testimony to a size easily digestible by the courts and for clarifying complex issues for speedy and just determination by the judge and jury. The desirability of having recourse to some reference procedure while at the same time preserving a party's right to trial by court and jury is reflected in rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure....
See Irving R. Kaufman, Masters in The Federal Courts: Rule 53, 58 Col.L.Rev. 452, 453-54 (1958) (emphasis added) (citations omitted); see also Note, Masters and Magistrates in the Federal Courts, 88 Harv.L.Rev 779 (1975). The very concerns resonated by Judge Kaufman illuminate the dangers which can surface in a reference process which has few limitations.
Although the federal reference process has built-in restrictions limiting the reference process in federal courts, 11 the Florida Rule has no equivalent substantive limitation. The only actual constraint on the reference process in Florida is the requirement that a litigant consent to the referral before the Master can hear the case. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.490(c) (). However, in view of the practical time constraints on the court docket, and the litigant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T.L. v. F.M.
...a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases." (emphasis added) ); De Clements v. De Clements, 662 So.2d 1276, 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (observing that "the trial judge is the only elected constitutional officer with the organic right to determine a li......
-
Page v. City of Fernandina Beach
...Recovery (Dade County), Inc., 568 So.2d 1344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), overruled in part on other grounds by De Clements v. De Clements, 662 So.2d 1276, 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); St. Regis Paper Co. v. Hill, 198 So.2d 365, 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); Pursell v. Sumter Elec. Coop., Inc., 169 So.2d 515......
-
Doe v. State
..."duty bound to examine and consider the evidence for itself and to make a judicial determination"); see also De Clements v. De Clements, 662 So.2d 1276, 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (observing that "the trial judge is the only elected constitutional officer with the organic right to determine a ......
-
Seigler v. Bell
...are clearly erroneous or if the [magistrate] has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence presented,” De Clements v. De Clements, 662 So.2d 1276, 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (citations omitted). Therefore, a trial court should review the magistrate's findings of fact to determine whether, ......
-
Temporary relief
...conclusions are clearly erroneous or whether the magistrate misconceived the legal effect of the evidence); De Clements v. De Clements, 662 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (both general magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law come to trial court clothed with presumption of corre......
-
Title procedure before general magistrates and child support enforcement hearing officers.
...Judicial Canons 1, 2A, and 3 apply to general magistrates. Financial disclosure is contained in Canon 7. (3) DeClements v. DeClements, 662 So. 2d 1276, 1279-80 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1995) (en (4) FLA. R. FAM. P. 12.490(a); FLA. R. JUV. P. 8.257(a). (5) FLA. R. FAM. P. 12.490(c); FLA. R. JUV. P. 8......
-
Utilizing "special masters" in Florida: unanswered questions, practical considerations, and the order of appointment.
...and complete written record on the master. In Boalt v. Boalt, 672 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and De Clements v. De Clements, 662 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), trial courts denied exceptions to special master reports because the records of the masters' proceedings were defective or un......
-
The corporate provisional director: has due process been overlooked?
...Stat. [sections] 607.1435(2). (4) Fla. Stat. [sections] 607.1435. (5) Fla. Const. art. I, [sections] 21; De Clements v. De Clements, 662 So. 2d 1276, 1283 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1995) (citing Bell v. Bell, 307 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. (6) De Clements, 662 So. 2d at 1283. (7) Palm Beach Junior Co......