### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

A LBERTO RABADAN , Appellant /Cross

- A ppellee
,

v.

ANA RABADAN , Appellee /Cross

- Appellant

.

No. 4D19

- 3219

[ May 19, 2021 ]

Appeal and cross

- appeal from the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County
, Dina A. Keever

- Agrama , Judge ; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2017

- DR

008256

- XXXX

- NB

. Denise C. Desmond and Howard Rudolph of Rudolph & Associates, LLC, West Palm Beach
, for appellant /cross

- appellee

. Ralph T. White of The Law Offic e of RT White, Palm Beach Gardens , for appellee /cross

- appellant

.

ON APPELLEE/CROSS

- APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

P ER C URIAM

.

The appellee/cross

- appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied , but we withdraw our corrected opinion issued on March 31, 2021, and replace it with the following opinion.

Appellant, Alberto Rabadan (“Husband”) , seeks review of an alimony award granted to Appellee, Ana Rabadan (“Wife”)
, after presentation of divergent expert testimony on the financial ability of Husband to pay alimony

. We reverse the alimony award because it leav es the Husband with significantly less net income than the Wife, in violation of section 61.0 8 (9), Florida Statutes (2017)

. Background

Husband and Wife each presented opposing forensic accountant s to opine on Husband’s capacity for alimony. Factors affect ing the ir opinions2 were : the valuation of the family business ; a change in industry standards for competitive bidding in the business’s road maintenance projects ; the
cost and propriet y of a new warehouse lease for the business ; a significant increase in payroll expenses; and a line of credit which Husband obtained
to allegedly preserve the business.

Wife’s accountant testified that her need w as $9,523 per month and that Husband’s net income was $15,260 per month. Husband’s accountant testified that Wife’s monthly need w as $7,877 per month and that Husband’s net i ncome was negative

– [ $2,331 ] per month. The conflicting testimony on Husband’s in come was attributed to how each accountant treated the factors listed above.

The trial court was persuaded by Wife’s accountant and found that Husband had the ability to pay $8,000 per month . The trial court also awarded comprehensive health and dental i nsurance that was open

- ended and did not contain a monetary limitation on the maximum cost of those insurance s . The trial court then ordered the Husband to pu r chase a life insurance policy to secure the alimony

. The trial court failed to make findings re garding the availability and cost of the life insurance policy and the impact such cost would have on the Husband.

Analysis

An alimony award is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris , 382 So. 2d 1197, 1202 (Fla. 1980).

Section 61.0 8 (9) states that “[t]he award of alimony may not leave the payor with significantly less net income than the net income of the recipient unless there are written findings of exceptional circumstances.” § 61.0 8 (9), Fla. Stat. (201 7 ) (emphasis added).

“An alimony award, combined with other awards such as health insurance for a minor child, may leave [the paying spouse] without the means to support himself [or herself] , such that no reasonable [person] could differ as to the impropriety of the court’s aw ard.” Ballesteros v. Ballesteros , 819 So. 2d 902, 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “It is well

established that a trial court may, in its discretion, order a spouse to pay a reasonable amount for medical insurance premiums as a part of the alimony award.” Cyphe rs v. Cyphers , 373 So. 2d 442, 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

However, if a provision of the final judgment requires a party to provide medical or dental insurance for the other party, there must a monetary3 limitation on the “maximum cost of such insurance.” Gu ralnick v. Guralnick , 645 So. 2d 1097 , 1097

- 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)

. A trial court may require a party to maintain life insurance to secure alimony, but “it must make ‘ specific findings as to the availability and cost of the policies and the impact of such cost on the [spouse]

. ’ ” Jimenez v. Jimenez , 211 So. 3d 76, 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (quoting Norman v. Norman , 939 So. 2d 240, 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)).

Here, the trial court was persuaded by testimony from the Wife’s
accountant in d etermin ing that Husband’s net i ncome was $15,260 per month and granting the Wife $8,000 per month as a base alimony award

. The trial court also required the Husband to pay other expenses on behalf of the Wife as part of the final alimony award, including her he alth and dental insurance expenses

. And the Husband was required to purchase life insurance to secure his alimony obligations

. When these additional expenses are added to the base alimony award , the Husband is left with “significantly less net income than the net income of the recipient” in violation of section 61.0 8 (9).

The trial court may leave a paying spouse with significantly less net income than the net income of the receiving spouse only when it makes

“ written findings of exceptional circumstances.” Id. Understandably, the trial court wa nted to ensure the Wife would have enough alimo ny to meet her needs, particularly since s he was suffering from a terminal illness. But the trial court failed to make the requisite findings to warrant an exception
to section 61.0 8 (9)

.
Instead, the trial court simply stat ed in the final judgment that t he Wife relies upon her adult children for assistance with “daily activities, transportation to medical care, and emotional support

. ” The trial court then conclud ed the alimony needed to provide for a “ residence large enough for one or more of her adult c hildren to reside with her

. ”

T he trial court ’s justification impermissibly require d the Husband to contribute to the support of adult children that he no longer ha d a legal obligation to support. S ee § 743.07(2), Fla. Stat. (2017) ( recognizing only two exceptions that permit a court to require support for adult children : (1) dependents who are incapacitated and (2) adult children that are still in high school “with a reasonable expectation of graduation before the age of 19”).

In co nclusion, while we affirm the other issues raised by the Husband and the issue raised on cross

- appeal by the Wife
, we hold the trial court’s failure to include any express “written findings of exceptional4 circumstances” that could justify leaving the Husba nd with significantly less net income than the Wife requires us to reverse and remand for an appropriate determination of alimony consistent with this opinion

. The $8,000 base alimony award appear s to be the ceiling and not the floor.

I f on remand the tr ial court includes an amount to be paid directly by the Husband for the Wife’s health and dental i nsurance, the trial court sh all comply with the dictates of Guralnick , 645 So. 2d at 1097

- 98

. And, if on remand the trial court requires the Husband to purchase life insurance to secure his alimony obligation, the court shall make the findings required by Jimenez , 211 So. 3d at 79

.

Reverse d in part , affirmed in part, and remanded with instructions.

L EVINE , C. J., M AY and A RTAU , J J ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.