Title: In Re Family Law Rules of Procedure
Citation: 663 So. 2d 1049
Docket Number: 84337
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: November 22, 1995

663 So. 2d 1049 (1995)
In re FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE.
No. 84337.

Supreme Court of Florida.
November 22, 1995.
*1050 John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida; and Michael L. Hastings, Chairperson, Family Law Rules Committee, Hastings &amp; Estreicher, P.A., St. Petersburg, Florida, for Petitioner.
Steven H. Preston of Gurney &amp; Handley, P.A., Orlando, Florida; Henry P. Trawick, Jr. of the Law Offices of Trawick, Valentine &amp; Hagan, P.A., Sarasota, Florida; Honorable E. Earle Zehmer, Chief Judge, First District Court of Appeal, Tallahassee, Florida; Cynthia B. Glazier, Program Attorney, State of Florida Guardian Ad Litem Program, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Jacksonville, Florida; Beth E. Spiegel, North Miami Beach, Florida; S. William Goldstein of the Law Offices of Goldstein &amp; Goldstein, Jacksonville, Florida; B. Niklas Brihammar, Key West, Florida; Paul R. Marcus of the Law Offices of Paul R. Marcus, Miami, Florida; Honorable Dale Ross, Chief Judge, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Maurice Jay Kutner of Kutner &amp; West, P.A., Miami, Florida; Richard P. Aranson of Beiner &amp; Nussbaum, P.A., Boca Raton, Florida; Honorable Richard Yale Feder, Administrative Judge, Family Division, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida; Honorable Gerald T. Wetherington, Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida; Honorable Joseph P. Farina, Chief Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida; Honorable Donald Moran, Jr., Chief Judge and Honorable Hugh A. Carithers, Jr., Administrative Judge, Family Law Division, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Jacksonville, Florida; Andrew M. Leinoff of Leinoff &amp; Silvers, P.A., Coral Gables, Florida; Honorable Hugh E. Starnes, Chief Judge, Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Fort Myers, Florida; Honorable Leonard Rivkind, Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida; Honorable F. Dennis Alvarez, Chief Judge, and judges presiding in the Family Law Division, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Tampa, Florida; Peter M. Hockman, Homestead, Florida; Honorable Thomas S. Wilson, Jr., Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida; Lawrence M. Watson, Jr., Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Mediation and Arbitration Rules, Orlando, Florida; Raquel A. Rodriquez, Coral Gables, Florida; Nancy M. Blount, Assistant State Attorney, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida; Darlene Schweitzer-Ramras of Schweitzer &amp; Schweitzer-Ramras, P.A., Miami, Florida; Robert J. Jones, Miami, Florida; Marsha B. Elser, Cynthia L. Greene, Judith Hodor and Laura M. Fabar of Elser, Greene, Hodor &amp; Fabar, Miami, Florida; Peter A. Collins, Miami, Florida; William A. Daniel, Jr., Miami, Florida; Norman D. Levin of Levin &amp; Rabinowitz, Longwood, Florida; Honorable Anthony Rondolino, Circuit Judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit, St. Petersburg, Florida; Sharon L. Langer, Director, Dade County Bar Association Legal Aid Society, Miami, Florida; Honorable Alan S. Gold, *1051 Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida; Fred M. Dellapa, Coral Gables, Florida; Joy B. Shearer, General Master, Administrative Office of the Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, Florida; Rosemarie S. Roth, Miami, Florida; Martin J. Nolan, E.R. Whitehouse, Rusela V. Orr and Charlene Sharp Bogolub, certified and court appointed family mediators, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida; Bette Ellen Quiat, Miami, Florida; Perry S. Itkin, Chairperson, Education &amp; Training Committee, Florida Association of Professional Family Mediators, Dispute Resolution, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Honorable Roger A. Silver, County Judge, County Court of Dade County, Miami, Florida; Marilyn Blumberg of the Law Offices of Bette Ellen Quiat, Miami, Florida; Honorable Herbert M. Klein, Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida; Melvyn B. Frumkes of the Law Offices of Melvyn B. Frumkes &amp; Associates, P.A., Miami, Florida; William T. Bornhauser, Director, Family Mediation Program, Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Sarasota, Florida; Honorable Ronald M. Friedman, Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida; Honorable John L. Phillips, Administrative Judge, Family Division, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, Florida; Honorable George S. Reynolds, III, Vice-Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Florida; Honorable Stuart M. Simons, Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida; Catherine Marie Ivey of the Law Office of Henshaw &amp; Ivey, Cape Coral, Florida; and Honorable Seymour Benson, Circuit Judge, Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Sanford, Florida, submitting comments regarding Family Law Rules.
OVERTON, Justice.
On July 7, 1995, this Court adopted new family law rules in accordance with our prior determination to have separate rules for family law cases. See In re Family Law R.P., 663 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1995). After we issued the new rules, we published them in The Florida Bar News for further comment. Additionally, we asked the Family Law Rules Committee to review the rules for comment in view of the substantial modifications this Court made to the rules as proposed. The comments of the committee and others are now before this Court for review. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. After having reviewed the comments, we hereby modify the rules as set forth in the attached appendices. The changes include a number of technical modifications and some substantive modifications.
A majority of the comments received concern the rules governing general and special masters. These comments request that we address the restrictions the rules place on the authority of masters. Specifically, this Court has been asked to modify the rules to: (1) eliminate the provision that prohibits general and special masters from hearing civil contempt proceedings; and (2) eliminate the requirement of Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.490 that a general master must take the evidence in writing and must file that writing with the master's report and instead allow general masters to take testimony and establish a record electronically.
After consideration, we grant the first request and have modified Florida Family Law Rules 12.490 and 12.492 as set forth in attached Appendix B to eliminate the provision prohibiting general and special masters from hearing contempt proceedings. In granting this request, we note that, under the rules governing masters, no matter shall be heard by a general master without the consent of all parties. See Fla.Fam.L.R. 12.490(b)(1).
We also grant the second request as limited herein because we find that its implementation, with certain modifications, will expedite the family law litigation process and reduce costs. In the second request we are urged to find that allowing the use of an electronic record in lieu of requiring a master to take the evidence in writing is permissible under our constitution. The reason Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490 and now rule 12.490 require the written recording of documentary evidence by a master is to ensure that the party taking exceptions to the master's report has an adequate and fair opportunity *1052 for review and to ensure that a master's report is not contrary to the evidence or to the law. Knupp v. Knupp, 625 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Petrakis v. Petrakis, 597 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). In other words, some type of record must be created to protect a litigant's right to ultimate review by a judge. We find that electronically recording the master's proceeding and preserving that recording for future access sufficiently protects a litigant's rights by providing the ability to have the electronic record transcribed to establish an appropriate record for review if exceptions are filed.
In reaching this decision, we emphasize that we are in no way implying that judges may merely "rubber-stamp" the recommendations of masters. An adequate method of judicial review of the recommendations is still required given the limited judicial authority that may be vested in masters. According to comments received by this Court, however, confusion apparently exists as to the appropriate requirements for review given our holding in Lyon v. Lyon, 54 So. 2d 679, 680 (Fla. 1951), in which we stated:
We find that, provided a judge carefully considers (1) whether the evidence and facts, as fully set forth in a master's report, support the recommendations of the master and (2) whether the recommendations are justified under the law, then the review, absent exceptions, is adequate and satisfies the spirit of Lyon. Notwithstanding this finding, we emphasize that a judge must review the entire record if exceptions are filed. We have modified rule 12.490 accordingly.
In response to other remarks, we have made a number of technical and stylistic changes throughout the rules, forms, and appendices. We have also made the following substantive changes to the rules pursuant to the recommendations of the committee or others who submitted comments:
Regarding future modifications to the family law rules, we issue the following directives. The Family Law Rules Committee shall have continuing responsibility for review of the family law rules, including all forms and appendices. We also ask the Family Courts Steering Committee to review these rules, forms, and appendices and to make recommendations to this Court, with particular emphasis on revisions to further simplify the family law process for the many pro se litigants in family law cases. Finally, consistent with this Court's directives regarding mediation and arbitration rules in other areas, we direct that the Supreme Court Mediation and Arbitration Rules Committee shall have continuing responsibility for review of rules 12.740 and 12.741 governing family law mediation.
This Court acknowledges that, because these rules are new, additional changes to the rules may need to be implemented outside of the four-year rule revision cycle set forth in Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130. Consequently, we hereby grant to these committees a one-year extension beyond the time requirements of rule 2.130 for filing proposed revisions to the rules, forms, and appendices.
Accordingly, we reaffirm our adoption, effective January 1, 1996, of the amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (attached to this opinion as appendix A) and the new Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure (attached to this opinion as appendix B), as provided in In re Family Law Rules of Procedure, 663 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1995), and as modified herein. The comments to the rules *1054 are included for explanation and guidance only and are not adopted as an official part of the rules.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.