Case ID: so2d_630/html/1159-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rosaly SHEPPARD and The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Appellants, v. Arthur SHEPPARD, Appellee.
    No. 92-1503.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Dec. 14, 1993.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 22, 1994.
    Marcia K. Lippincott, Orlando, Diane H. Tutt, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
    Cypen & Cypen and Stephen Cypen, Miami Beach, for appellee.
    Before BASKIN, FERGUSON and LEVY, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order denying appellant Sheppard’s exceptions to the general master’s report and confirming and approving the general master’s report. “The findings of fact and recommendations of a master should be approved and adopted by a trial, judge unless clearly erroneous, or it appears that the máster has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence.” Barrow v. Barrow, 563 So.2d 219, 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Bloom v. Bloom, 414 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Landis v. Landis, 486 So.2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The court’s ratification and adoption of the master’s report is proper; the master’s findings are supported by the record. • Thus, the order under review is affirmed.

Affirmed.