450 So. 2d 1188 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1984
Lead Opinion
The Reichmans were divorced in 1979. In its Final Judgment the court ordered Dr. Reichman to pay Mrs. Reichman $1500 a month rehabilitative alimony for four years followed by child support payments of $125 a week to each child until that child reaches 18 years of age. Subsequently, both parties sought modification. The wife sought either permanent alimony or an extended period of rehabilitative alimony and separate child support; the husband sought termination of rehabilitative alimony. The trial court referred the matter to a general master. The master conducted two hearings and submitted a report in which he found that neither party had demonstrated a change of circumstances sufficient to warrant modification. With regard to the wife’s petition for modification, the trial
The findings of fact and recommendations of a master should be approved and adopted by the trial judge unless they are clearly erroneous or the master has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence. See Shaw v. Shaw, 369 So.2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The trial court is bound by the master’s findings if they are supported by competent evidence. Dent v. Dent, 438 So.2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We have reviewed the record and have determined that the evidence before the master was conflicting. The master resolved conflicts in the evidence in favor of the husband. Because it is the function of the trier of fact, here the master, to resolve conflicts in testimony, Ciccarelli v. Ciccarelli, 352 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), and because no evidence demonstrates that Mrs. Reichman was permanently disabled by her physical ailments, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the wife’s exceptions to the general master’s report.
Reversed.
Rehearing
ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING
The appellant’s motion for rehearing calls to our attention that the opinion of this court filed on May 8, 1984, failed to address appellant’s appeal from a final judgment for attorney’s fees and costs (Case No. 83-2998). He correctly points out that because our reversal of the order awarding permanent alimony to the wife may affect the appropriateness of the amount of fees awarded to the wife’s attorney, the judgment awarding fees should be revisited. Accordingly, the motion for rehearing is granted, and the final judgment for attorney’s fees and costs appealed in Case No. 83-2998 is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further consideration of the attorney’s fee award in light of our reversal of the orders appealed in Case Nos. 83-2358 and 83-2361. The appellee’s motion for rehearing is denied.
