## Facts

- In a Florida dissolution proceeding, a general master served a report on Diane N. Werntz by mail on November 22, 2000.
- Under Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.490(f), exceptions to the report had to be served within ten days after service.
- Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.090 requires time computation under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090, which excludes the day of service and adds five days when service is by mail.
- Werntz served and filed exceptions on December 7, 2000.
- On December 7, 2000, the trial court rejected the exceptions as untimely, approved the master’s report, and entered an order of contempt against Werntz without considering the exceptions.
- Werntz appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether exceptions to a general master’s report served by mail are timely when served on the fifteenth day after service, applying the time-computation rules in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090.
2. Whether the trial court erred by approving the master’s report and entering a contempt order without considering timely served exceptions.

## Decision

- Reversed.
- The appellate court held Werntz’s exceptions were timely because the ten-day period under Rule 12.490(f) is computed by excluding the day of service and adding five days for service by mail.
- The trial court erred by approving the master’s report and entering contempt without affording the full time to file exceptions and without considering the timely exceptions.

## Legal Principles

- Exceptions to a general master’s report in family cases must be served within ten days after service of the report. (Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.490(f))
- Time periods in family cases are computed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090. (Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.090)
- Under Rule 1.090, the day of the act/event is excluded from the computation, and when service is by mail, five days are added to the prescribed period. (Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(a), (e))
- A trial court may not approve a master’s report or enter contempt in a manner that effectively shortens the allowed exceptions period or disregards timely exceptions.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the contempt order because the exceptions period, computed under Rule 1.090, extended through December 7, 2000, making Werntz’s exceptions timely; the trial court acted prematurely by approving the master’s report and imposing contempt without considering those exceptions.


Werntz v. Floyd, 814 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)