Case Name: John A. WASZKOWSKI, Appellant, v. Sherry WASZKOWSKI, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1979-02-27
Citations: 367 So. 2d 1113
Docket Number: No. 78-1704
Parties: John A. WASZKOWSKI, Appellant, v. Sherry WASZKOWSKI, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and SCHWARTZ, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 367
Pages: 1113–1114

Head Matter:
John A. WASZKOWSKI, Appellant, v. Sherry WASZKOWSKI, Appellee.
No. 78-1704.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb. 27, 1979.
A, John Goshgarian and Howard J. Hoch-man, Miami, for appellant.
Ronald S. Lieberman and Kenneth Of-gang, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and SCHWARTZ, JJ.

Opinion:
HUBBART, Judge.
By this interlocutory appeal under Fla.R. App.P. 9.130(a)(4) (1978), we are asked to review the propriety of a post-judgment order approving a general master's report on a motion to modify child custody filed by the wife Sherry Waszkowski in a marriage dissolution action. We affirm the order under review except that portion which approves a child support award of $25 a week to be paid by the husband John Waszkowski as recommended in the general master's report. The child support award as contained in the order under review is reversed.
The law is clear that a general master may not go beyond the matters referred to him for determination by the trial court, and that if a general master reports as to a matter which was not referred to him by the trial court, his report so far as it relates to that matter is a nullity. Burns v. Burns, 153 Fla. 73, 13 So.2d 599 (1943); White v. Walker, 5 Fla. 478, 486 (1854); Koenig v. Watsco, Inc., 261 So.2d 851, 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). In the instant case, the general master exceeded the scope of his authority when he took testimony and determined the issue of child support herein. The trial court had previously referred the issues of child custody and visitation to the general master for determination based on the wife's post-judgment motion to modify child custody. The wife did not request child support in her motion to modify and the trial court did not refer that issue to the general master for determination. As such, the general master's report relating to child support was a nullity and should not have been approved on that issue by the trial court. In all other respects, the general master's report was properly approved by the trial court.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.