concurring:
I concur in the result reached in this appeal but consider it important to emphasize that, through no fault of the chancellor, we are without findings of fact in this case.
The fault is that of the appellant who failed to follow the "precise rubrics” of Maryland Rule 596 (1981 Cum.Supp.). Specifically, she neglected to notify the Master in writing of her intention to file exceptions, as required by subsection f.2. of the Rule. This is a serious omission, for two reasons: (a) Under 596 f.2. (b), unless there is a timely filing of the notice of intention to file exceptions, the right to fíle exceptions is waived; (b) under 596 f.2. (c), the Master is not required to file a "written report” (i.e., findings of fact) unless the aforesaid notice has been filed.
This serious omission is not cured by filing exceptions "with the clerk” under 596 h.l., as did appellant. That subsection requires that the exceptions be filed "within ten days from the filing of the written report.” But here, the written report was not filed by the Master. He was kept completely in the dark because no notice of intent was filed. No written report from him would be forthcoming without that notice.
It would seem that, on remand, all the chancellor need do is make a suitable inscription that the appellant’s exceptions are a nullity because the right to file them was waived.