Opinion ID: 1943343
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Authority of the Special Master

Text: In their objection to the 2003 report, appellants argued that by recommending two alternate replats of the disputed area, the master inappropriately proposed a forced compromise with respect to the dispute. Because this is a challenge to the authority of the master to issue the 2003 report, we deem it without merit. Rule 53(a) provides that a court may appoint a special master in any appropriate action which is pending therein. Such an appointment may be ordered upon agreement of the parties, as occurred in this case. Rule 53(b)(1). Once a master has been appointed, the master's powers are determined by the order of reference issued by the Superior Court. Rule 53(c). Subject to the specifications and limitations contained in the order of reference, the master has and shall exercise the power to regulate all proceedings in every hearing before the master and to do all acts and take all measures necessary or proper for the efficient performance of the master's duties under the order.  Id. (emphasis added). In the course of performing his duties, the master may require the production of evidence, rule on the admissibility of evidence, administer an oath to witnesses and examine them, and make a record of evidence offered and excluded. Id. In the present case, by agreement of the parties, the first order issued to the master authorized and directed him to conduct an investigation, to receive and report evidence, and to regulate all proceedings. This order also required the master to submit a report with his findings of fact, conclusions of law[,] and recommendations for a professionally sound, iust[,] and fair resolution to the controversy.  (Emphasis added.) The master complied with this charge and issued the 2000 report; he determined the source of the discrepancies between the conflicting surveys and recommended that the town conduct new surveys, establish monuments, and abandon the westerly portion of Bogman Street. Consistent with the charge, the master also recommended a sound, just, and fair resolution to this controversy. Significantly, none of the parties filed a written objection to the master's 2000 report and his recommendations as provided by Rule 53(e)(2). The failure to make a timely objection to the findings and recommendations of a master appointed in accordance with Rule 53 serves to foreclose a party's ability to raise an objection in this Court. Cherubino v. Cherubino, 756 A.2d 174, 178 (R.I.2000). Pursuant to Rule 53(e)(2), after a report by the master has been filed without subsequent objection, a party may motion the court to take action upon the report. In the present case, the trial justice granted a motion to approve the master's report, findings, and recommendations. The trial justice subsequently issued an order that directed the master to establish the monuments as recommended in his report and to develop a proposed replat of the unopened roadways as suggested in order to alleviate encroachments, and to develop a plan respecting the traditionally held areas of possession consistent with the recommendations and findings contained in his report. This 2001 order instructed the master to perform particular acts and was well within the trial justice's power under Rule 53(c). The master was directed to file a proposed plat with the court and indicate the suggested revised street widths, lot layouts and monumentation, as recommended for further review and consideration by the Court. Importantly, this order reflected the master's recommendations for future action contained in the 2000 report, to which appellants failed to proffer any objection as required by Rule 53(e)(2). We deem this determinative of the issues before us. In his second report to the court, the 2003 report, the master recommended either of two alternatives for the replat of Bogman Street, both reflecting a diminution in its width. This recommendation clearly was contemplated by the order of reference. Accordingly, we reject appellants' contention that the master exceeded his authority in recommending a replat of Bogman Street in accordance with one of two proposed plans. Having failed to object to the master's first report that recommended that a new plat be prepared and recorded showing the revised street width, lot layout, and monumentation[,] appellants may not now complain that the master was without authority to do so. It is obvious that appellants' objection to the authority of the master did not arise until he issued a report with which they did not concur. Their dissatisfaction, however, is insufficient to disturb the judgment in this case.