II v. Diana Molo, Appellee. (2026)

Peter Molo, II (“Former Husband”) appeals the Amended Final Judgment dissolving his marriage to Diana Molo (“Former Wife”). He argues that the trial court erred in several respects when it awarded Former Wife alimony and child support. We agree, and reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The parties were married on May 10, 2013, and their only child was born on June 1, 2021. In March 2023, Former Wife filed her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, requesting sole parental responsibility of the child, the ability to relocate with the child to Pennsylvania to be closer to her family, imputation of income to Former Husband, alimony, and child support.

The trial was held over two days in November 2023 and February 2024. Before trial concluded, the parties entered into a stipulation regarding the issues of the sale of the marital home, equitable distribution, retroactive child support, and attorney's fees and costs.

At trial, Former Wife testified that during the marriage she and Former Husband lived in Florida and she graduated from nursing school as a registered nurse. In 2018, she began working as a nurse in Palm Coast. She gave birth to the child in June 2021 and, after that, she stopped working and received disability for a mental-health disorder. While working at the hospital in Florida, Former Wife made $40,467 per year.

At the beginning of their marriage, Former Husband managed several restaurants. In 2015, Former Husband began working at AT&T as a wire technician and remained there for approximately six years. While at AT&T, Former Husband made approximately $55,000 per year. In August 2022, Former Husband quit his job at AT&T. Former Wife testified that Former Husband left his AT&T job because he was in three car accidents in company cars during work. At one point in his testimony, Former Husband confirmed that he resigned from AT&T due to the car accidents. However, later, he testified that he left the AT&T job because he had health problems that prevented him from performing the work associated with being a wire technician.

Former Wife additionally testified that she, Former Husband, and the child visited her parents in Pennsylvania in August 2022. While there, Former Husband became enraged after an altercation and he left her and the child there and returned to Florida. Since that time, Former Wife and the child have lived with Former Wife's parents in Pennsylvania and Former Husband has lived in Florida.

Former Wife also testified that, by the second day of trial in February 2024, she had been offered a part-time position at Bayada Home Health in Pennsylvania as an in-home pediatric nurse. She believed she would be making between $29 and $30 per hour. Former Wife was unable to estimate the exact number of hours that she would be working because it depended on the child who was assigned to her.

Former Husband then testified that he was unemployed until May 2023 when he began working at a company doing IT support. At the time of trial, he worked between 37 and 40 hours per week making about $20 per hour. Former Husband also testified that his highest level of education was a GED, but he was in school pursuing a Bachelor of Science degree in cybersecurity and information assurance, which would allow him to work in cybersecurity. He also testified that IT work pays between $43,000 and $44,000 per year. Former Husband explained that he can no longer work as a wire technician because he tore his meniscus in 2020. When Former Wife's attorney asked Former Husband why he was unable to kneel for work but he could run five miles three times per week, Former Husband was unable to answer.

Former Husband additionally testified that he has been living in the marital home during the pending divorce. Since September 2023, he has rented out a room in the home for $700 per month. He has not provided Former Wife with a portion of the rent that he receives.

The trial court ultimately entered an Amended Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, which granted Former Wife's request to relocate to Pennsylvania with the child, and awarded Former Wife alimony and child support.¹ Specifically, the trial court imputed income to Former Husband in the amount of $55,000 per year, finding that Former Husband has voluntarily underemployed himself and has not sought similar employment. It additionally imputed $700 per month in income to Former Husband, which reflected the rental income that Former Husband had been receiving.

Based on these and other figures in the record, the trial court found that Former Husband had some ability to pay alimony and Former Wife had a need for alimony. Thus, it ordered Former Husband to pay Former Wife $414.45 per month in durational alimony for a period of 36 months. The trial court also calculated Former Husband's child support obligation to be $477.49 per month. The trial court concluded that after paying alimony and child support, Former Husband would have a monthly surplus of $135.78. It also ordered that he pay Former Wife $21,000 in retroactive temporary alimony. Finally, the trial court ordered that Husband was solely responsible for the costs of transporting the child for timesharing.

Former Husband filed a timely motion for rehearing challenging the Amended Final Judgment. The trial court subsequently entered an Order Supplementing and Amending Amended Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage (“the Supplemental Final Judgment”), which removed the retroactive temporary alimony.

On appeal, Former Husband argues that the Amended Final Judgment should be reversed because: (1) the trial court erred when it imputed income to him and did not impute income to Former Wife for full-time work; (2) the trial court did not include the alimony awarded to Former Wife as a part of her income when calculating Former Husband's child support obligation; (3) there were internal inconsistencies in the Amended Final Judgment; (4) the Amended Final Judgment and the Supplemental Final Judgment do not include written findings of fact as required by statute; (5) the trial court erred in including $700 in rental income from the marital home in Former Husband's income for alimony purposes; and (6) the alimony and child support awards exceeded Former Husband's ability to pay and left him with a monthly deficit.

We affirm without comment Former Husband's arguments related to the imputation of income, including imputing $700 per month in rental income to Former Husband.² However, for the following reasons, we reverse on the remaining issues.³

First, the trial court failed to include Former Husband's alimony award when calculating Former Wife's income for purposes of the child support obligation. This is reversible error. See § 61.30(2)(a)9., Fla. Stat. (2024) (“Gross income shall include, but is not limited to, the following ․ Spousal support ․ ordered in the marriage before the court.”); Christensen v. Christensen, 147 So. 3d 118, 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (reversing child support award and remanding for recalculation where the trial court did not include its award of alimony as part of wife's income when it calculated husband's child support obligation).

Second, the Amended Final Judgment listed Former Wife's net monthly income as $3,177.42 and her gross monthly income as $3,364.00. However, the Child Support Worksheet that was attached to the Amended Final Judgment listed Former Wife's net monthly income as $2,843.32 and her gross monthly income as $3,333.00. It is unclear which figures the trial court used when determining the child support award and whether those figures were supported by competent, substantial evidence. Therefore, we reverse and remand for correction or clarification by the trial court. See Veith v. Veith, 315 So. 3d 1259, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (reversing final judgment and remanding where there were internal inconsistencies as to the parties’ net monthly incomes for both parties); Weymouth v. Weymouth, 87 So. 3d 30, 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“A dissolution judgment that is internally inconsistent should be reversed and remanded for correction or clarification.”).

Third, while the Amended Final Judgment and the Supplemental Final Judgment found that Former Husband had the ability to pay alimony and Former Wife had a need for alimony, they do not include written findings of fact as required by section 61.08(2)(b), Florida Statutes. It is well settled that a trial court's failure to consider all appropriate factors under section 61.08(2)(b) when determining alimony is a legal error that requires reversal. See Jimenez v. Jimenez, 211 So. 3d 76, 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (reversing and remanding award of permanent alimony where trial court did not consider all of the factors contained within section 61.08(2)); Matajek v. Skowronska, 927 So. 2d 981, 986 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (recognizing that trial court's failure to consider all appropriate factors under section 61.08(2) in determining alimony is error requiring reversal). Here, the trial court considered some of the statutory factors when deciding to award alimony to Former Wife, but it failed to consider all relevant factors. Accordingly, we reverse and remand so that the trial court can consider all of the statutory factors as required by section 61.08(2)(b).

Fourth, the trial court erred when it failed to consider payments that Former Husband made for the child's travel-related expenses when calculating Former Husband's income.⁴ See Marini v. Kellett, 279 So. 3d 248, 255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (“Given that the travel expenses are necessary expenses incurred pursuant to court order and that the parties both professed difficulty paying such exorbitant expenses, we find the court abused its discretion in failing to consider the expenses when calculating the child support award. The court also abused its discretion in failing to consider the travel expenses when determining the parties’ income and Mother's ability to pay.”). The trial court found that Former Husband had a monthly surplus of $135.78 after accounting for the alimony and child support awards. At trial, Former Husband testified that the travel expenses associated with the child's timesharing totaled $500 per month. When that figure is included in Former Husband's monthly expenses, Former Husband has a monthly deficit. Ordering support that exceeded Former Husband's ability to pay was an abuse of discretion. See Hawryluk v. Hawryluk, 365 So. 3d 477, 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (recognizing that a trial court abuses its discretion by awarding a support award that exceeds or nearly exhausts a party's income).

For these reasons, we reverse the Amended Final Judgment and the Supplemental Final Judgment and remand for the trial court to recalculate child support. On remand, the trial court should also reevaluate whether alimony is appropriate under these circumstances and, if so, recalculate the amount of the alimony award. In all other respects, we affirm.

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part; and Remanded with Instructions.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Former Husband does not challenge the relocation ruling on appeal.

2.   Former Husband did not preserve his argument that the trial court erred when it included the rental income in Former Husband's imputed income. See Moody v. Newton, 264 So. 3d 292, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (“Because the alleged error first appeared in the final judgment, Former Wife was required to bring this matter to the lower court's attention in a motion for rehearing.”).

3.   Former Wife concedes that the court erred when it failed to include the alimony award when calculating Former Husband's child support obligation. She also concedes that remand is necessary because the amounts in the child support guidelines were inconsistent with the Amended Final Judgment.

4.   We note that Former Husband does not challenge the trial court's decision to require him to pay all of the child's travel expenses. Instead, he argues that those expenses should have been included when calculating his income because he is required to pay for the child's travel.

Wallis, J.

Boatwright and MacIver, JJ., concur.