[Editor's Note: This opinion is subject to modification or transfer to the supreme court.]

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, Judge.

The husband, Richard Hoffman, appeals the Final Judgment/Order of Court, Per the Special Master entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County following dissolution of the husband's marriage to the wife, Anastasia Hoffman. Because the trial court failed to follow the procedure set forth in Missouri Supreme Court Rule 68.01(g), we reverse the judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings.

The wife filed for dissolution of marriage in 2005, and the trial court entered its judgment/decree of dissolution, which inter alia dissolved the parties' marriage, provided for custody and support of the parties' children, and characterized and divided the parties' property. The trial court later amended its judgment twice. The parties had numerous difficulties accomplishing the ordered property division. Therefore, with the parties' consent, the trial court appointed a special master in January 2008 "to resolve all remaining issues between the parties necessary to effectuate the terms of the court's Amended Judgment."

The special master met with the parties, without counsel, and the trial court entered its "Final Judgment/Order of Court, Per the Special Master." The special master did not file a report for the parties to review prior to the trial court's entry of judgment. The husband appeals.

Missouri Supreme Court Rule 68.01 allows the circuit court to appoint a special master. Masters are appointed to aid judges in specific duties, but "[a] court cannot delegate or abdicate, in whole or in part, its judicial power." D'Agostino v. D'Agostino, 54 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Mo.App. W.D. 2001). "The trial court must examine and consider the evidence for itself and determine whether the law and the facts of the case justify entry of the judgment recommended by the master." Id.

The special master shall file a report with the court clerk, who shall provide all parties with a copy. Rule 68.01(g)(1). The parties have thirty days in which to file written objections. Rule 68.01(g)(2). If no objections are filed, the court may adopt the report. Rule 68.01(g)(3). If objections are filed or if the court proposes action other than adoption of the report, then the court, after hearing, may adopt the report, modify it, reject all or part of it, receive further evidence, or recommit the report to the special master with instructions. Id.

Failure to follow the procedure set forth in Rule 68.01 constitutes reversible error. Stewart v. Jones, 58 S.W.3d 926, 929 (Mo.App. S.D. 2001) (failure to afford hearing on objections held reversible error); R.J. v. S.L.J., 732 S.W.2d 574, 576-77 (Mo.App. E.D. 1987) (error to adopt master's report without requested hearing transcript and without master's required oath). See also Shaner v. System Integrators, Inc., 63 S.W.3d 674, 679 (Mo.App. E.D. 2001) (holding accountant's report a nullity not to be considered on remand where appellant had no notice that accountant was appointed special master, accountant did not take oath and did not meet with parties, and appellant had no opportunity to make record or challenge report).

Here, the trial court failed to follow the procedure set forth in Rule 68.01(g). It appears from the record that the special master did not file his report with the court clerk. Thus, the parties received no copy of the report to review, and they had no opportunity to file objections. Had either party timely filed objections, Rule 68.01 would have required the court to conduct a hearing.

It is apparent to us that the procedure mandated by Rule 68.01(g) seeks to guarantee the parties due process when the circuit court appoints a special master. The procedure for the trial court's adoption of the special master's report is analogous to the court's entry of judgment on the findings of a commissioner. In that context, due process requires notice and an opportunity for a hearing, and a meaningful opportunity for a hearing includes a reasonable time in which to challenge the commissioner's findings before a circuit judge. Dabin v. Dir. of Revenue, 9 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Mo. banc 2000). Similar principles must govern cases involving a special master. Here, the parties received no opportunity to respond to the special master's report or to be heard before the entry of judgment. Furthermore, the record contains nothing revealing the basis for the master's recommendations or the trial court's consideration thereof, thus hindering our review.

We reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings. We acknowledge that here the trial court appointed the special master with the parties' consent, and that a special master may aid in implementing the court's order. E.g., Lediner v. Harris, 145 S.W.3d 479, 482 (Mo.App. S.D. 2004); D'Agostino, 54 S.W.3d at 195-96. However, it is unclear to us whether use of a special master will aid the parties or the court, and the parties and the court may wish to reconsider their use of a special master. First, as a general rule, a judgment must be definite and certain as to the amount for which it is rendered. Echele v. Echele, 782 S.W.2d 430, 434 (Mo.App. E.D. 1989). If a decree is so indefinite that it requires a later hearing to determine its meaning and involves discretion, the decree is void and unenforceable. Id. at 436. And a decree that fails to set forth any specific and certain criteria to determine the amount due is unenforceable. Liberty v. Liberty, 826 S.W.2d 381, 385 (Mo.App. E.D. 1992). Second, it is not apparent from the record before us whether either party has moved the court for relief pursuant to Rule 74.07, which might better serve to conclude the case. If the court concludes that use of a special master is warranted, Rule 68.01 shall govern.

ROY L. RICHTER, P.J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., concur.