Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

RUTH ROSENTHAL, APPELLANT, v. MARTIN ROSENTHAL, APPELLEE.

PER CURIAM.

The findings and recommendations of the master dated March 24, 1983 were not clearly erroneous, nor does it appear that the master misconceived the legal effect of the evidence. Consequently, it was error for the trial court to fail to approve and adopt those recommendations. Frank v. Frank, 75 So.2d 282 (Fla. 1954); Claughton v. Claughton, 347 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Finding all other points raised on the appeal and cross-appeal to be without merit, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court adopt the master's March 24, 1983 recommendations in their entirety.

Reversed and remanded.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ROSENTHAL v. ROSENTHAL
(Feb 19, 1985)