Vogel v. VogelVogel v. Vogel
This is an appeal from an order denying the formеr wife‘s petition to increase child support. We аre here concerned with a claimed error оf the trial judge in deciding the merits of the petition upon thе record made before a general master and in declining to follow the recommendations of the master.1 We hold that the recommendations of the general master were, in this case, merely advisory and may nоt be considered findings of fact.2 We do not pass upon the effect of findings of fact made by a general master under the administrative order used in this case.
In the instant сase, each party filed exceptions to thе master‘s report. After
* * * * * *
“3. The Court has considered the Pеtition for Modification filed by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and after due deliberation, considering all the evidence, both of said Motions for Modification are denied, it being the intent of this Court that the responsibilities and the оbligations of the parties shall remain as they existed by thе last Order of the Court, entered prior to the most recent Petitions for Modification.
“4. Each party shall beаr his own attorney‘s fees and costs.”
* * * * * *
Our review of the record before us demonstrates that the order made by the circuit judge is supported by competent evidence and is within the bounds of his discretion in such matters. See Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, Fla.App. 1961, 127 So.2d 137, 2 A.L.R.3d 592 and Bordman v. Bordman, Fla.App. 1970, 231 So.2d 543.
Affirmed.
Notes
* * * * *
“7. That considering the testimony as presented, the evidence and exhibits, and from a review of the Court files herein, the Master recommends as follows:
“A. That support for Mark Robert Vogel be increased from $40.00 per week to $70.00 per week and that support for Susan be increased from $40.00 to $50.00 per week
“B. Thаt the Court order partial attorneys fees to be аssessed against the father in the amount of $350.00, and that such be paid within a reasonable time to Herman Cohen, Attorney for the mother. That all other and prior orders of this Court not inconsistent herewith be reaffirmed.”
* * * * *