DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ROBERT JOSEPH WATFORD,

Appellant,

v.

FONDA KAY WATFORD,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-1605

[ May 18, 2016 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Krista Marx, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50 2014 DR 002292 

XXXX NB FI.

J. Harley Toufanian of The Law Office of Cyrus K. Toufanian, P.A., West 

Palm Beach, for appellant.

Joseph J. Mancini of The Kessler Law Firm, Fort Pierce, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Watford (“Former Husband”) appeals the Final Judgment of 

Dissolution of Marriage, challenging the trial court’s award of alimony to 

Fonda Watford (“Former Wife”), equitable distribution, and award of 

attorney’s fees to Former Wife. We agree with his arguments and reverse.

The parties were married for sixteen years. Former Wife did not hold 

steady employment during the marriage, but sometimes performed with 

her band at bars and restaurants. At the time of the trial, she had gone 

back to school and secured a part-time job with hopes of it turning into a 

full-time job. Former Husband operated his own air conditioning 

business. In 2014, Former Wife petitioned for dissolution of the marriage. 

After a trial, the trial court entered the Final Judgment of Dissolution, 

finding Former Husband’s gross annual income was $86,500, and 

awarding Former Wife $1,200 a month in alimony for a period of ten years. 

Finding Former Husband had dissipated marital funds from the IRA, the 

trial court ordered him to pay Former Wife an extra $7,500 in equitable 

distribution from the early withdrawn IRA funds, in addition to the 

$8,067.39 that she had already received from the IRA. The trial court also 
2

awarded attorney’s fees to Former Wife.

In awarding alimony, a trial court must “consider all relevant factors, 

including, but not limited to” those listed in section 61.08. § 61.08(2), Fla. 

Stat. (2014). Here, the Final Judgment did not include factual findings as 

to each of the factors listed in the statute. See Gray v. Gray, 103 So. 3d 

962, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“A final judgment is legally deficient where 

it fails to include sufficient findings of fact to support the alimony award 

in light of the section 61.08(2) factors.”). There is no competent, 

substantial evidence supporting the finding that the Former Husband’s 

gross income was $86,500, and the trial court erroneously used Former 

Husband’s gross income as opposed to his net income in calculating 

alimony. See Rentel v. Rentel, 124 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“Net 

income rather than gross income is relevant when calculating support 

awards, including alimony.”). Additionally, there was no evidence Former 

Husband’s withdrawal from the IRA resulted from intentional misconduct. 

See Zvida v. Zvida, 103 So. 3d 1052, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

As to the award of attorney’s fees to Former Wife, while the trial court 

found she had the need for attorney’s fees, it did not make any findings as 

to Former Husband’s ability to pay, or as to the reasonableness of the 

hourly rate and hours expended. Thus, the award of attorney’s fees to 

Former Wife was error. See Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla. 

1997).

Accordingly, because the trial court erred in making the above findings, 

we reverse and remand for the trial court to make all the necessary 

findings. On remand, the trial court will have to reevaluate Former Wife’s 

need for attorney’s fees and Former Husband’s ability to pay the fees. See 

Segall v. Segall, 708 So. 2d 983, 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“[W]here . . . the 

results of an appeal materially change the parties’ abilities to pay, the issue 

of attorneys’ fees must be revisited upon remand to the trial court.”).

Reversed and Remanded.

STEVENSON, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.