When issues are referred to and heard by a master under rule 171, the master's report is conclusive on all issues except those specifically objected to. Minnich v. Jones, 799 S.W.2d 327, 328 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1990, no writ); Martin, 797 S.W.2d at 350; Cameron v. Cameron, 601 S.W.2d 814, 815 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1980, no writ). To the extent the master's report is objected to, it is not binding.

The order overruling the request for additional or amended findings of fact and conclusions of law specifically states that no objection or exception to the master's report was filed before the court adopted the report. We hold that Cameron v. Cameron, 601 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1980, no writ) is controlling under these facts. When issues are referred to and heard by a master under Rule 171, the master's report is conclusive on the issues considered by the master in the absence of a proper objection.

"Since the evidence must be heard anew on issues concerning which objections are made, and the master's findings are conclusive on other issues, the court has no occasion to inquire into the evidence heard by the master." Cameron v. Cameron, 601 S.W.2d 814, 815 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1980, no writ). On appeal, Sam argues that he was entitled to trial de novo "and the Court should have only considered evidence presented at the trial de novo when characterizing the . . . Jones Account."

Carolyn argues Woody has waived any complaint with regard to the trial court's adoption of the special master's report because he failed to object to it before it was adopted. If no proper objection is made to the master's report before the trial court adopts it, the report becomes conclusive on the issues considered by the master. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Caldwell, 830 S.W.2d 622, 625 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Disk] 1991, orig. proceeding); Martin v. Martin, 797 S.W.2d 347, 350 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1990, no writ); McCrory Co. v. Avery Mays Constr. Co., 690 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Novotny v. Novotny, 665 S.W.2d 171, 173 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Disk] 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Cameron v. Cameron, 601 S.W.2d 814, 815 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1980, no writ). It is the dissatisfied party's burden to make specific objections before the report is adopted by the court. Martin, 797 S.W.2d at 350; McCrory Co., 690 S.W.2d at 334; Novotny, 665 S.W.2d at 173; Cameron, 601 S.W.2d at 815.

Lastly, whatever utility might have been gained by the auditor traveling to New York City would have been lost if the defendants filed exceptions to the auditor's report as provided in the March 21 order. For to the extent it is challenged by exceptions, a master's report is not binding and contested fact issues are to be tried de novo before the court if a jury has not been requested. See Mann v. Mann, 607 S.W.2d 243 (Tex. 1980); Young v. Young, 854 S.W.2d 698, 701 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1993, writ denied); Hyundai Motor America v. O'Neill, 839 S.W.2d 474, 480 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1992, no writ); Minnich v. Jones, 799 S.W.2d 327, 328 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1990, no writ); Cameron v. Cameron, 601 S.W.2d 814, 815 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1980, no writ). Clearly the defendants would have filed exceptions to any part of the auditor's report detrimental to them, since they were filing objections to the initial appointment of the auditor.

TEX.R.CIV.P. 171. A master's report is conclusive on issues considered by the master in the absence of a proper objection. Cameron v. Cameron, 601 S.W.2d 814, 815 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1980, no writ). If an objection is made, the master's report is without force. Martin, 797 S.W.2d at 350.

It is undisputed that relators received notice of the hearing on sanctions before the master and attended the hearing. However, relator Owens-Corning asserts it was entitled to a de novo hearing before the trial court prior to the court's adoption of the master's report recommending that Owens-Corning pay attorney's fees to the plaintiffs' attorneys. Owens-Corning relies on Cameron v. Cameron, 601 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1980, no writ), Novotny v. Novotny, 665 S.W.2d 171 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, writ dism'd), and Martin v. Martin, 797 S.W.2d 347 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1990, no writ) to support its position. The "notice and hearing" language was added to rule 215(3) effective September 1, 1990.

When issues are referred to and heard by a master, the master's report is conclusive on the issues considered by the master in the absence of a proper objection. Cameron v. Cameron, 601 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1980, no writ). When excepted to, the master's report is without force.

The master's findings are conclusive on any unobjected-to issues and the trial court "has no occasion to inquire into the evidence heard by the master." See Cameron v. Cameron, 601 S.W.2d 814, 815 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1980, no writ) (finding appellant cannot attack trial court findings on grounds the record made before the master contains insufficient evidence); see also Robles v. Robles, 965 S.W.2d 605, 612 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) ("[I]f a proper objection to a master's recommendations and findings is not filed before those findings are adopted by the referring court, those findings become conclusive on the issues considered by the tax master."). This conforms to century-old caselaw concluding reports issued by auditors or masters appointed under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure are conclusive on all unobjected-to issues.

When issues are referred to a master under Rule 171, the master's report is conclusive on all issues except those to which objection is made. Cameron v. Cameron, 601 S.W.2d 814, 815 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1980, no writ). To the extent it is challenged by exceptions, the master's report is not binding and the contested fact issues are to be tried de novo before the court if a jury has not been requested, or before a jury if one has been requested.