DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ALBERTO RABADAN,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

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-DR008256-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 Office of RT White, Palm Beach Gardens, for 

appellee/cross-appellant.

ON APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

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 leaves the Husband 

with significantly less net income than the Wife, in violation of section 

61.08(9), Florida Statutes (2017).

Background

Husband and Wife each presented opposing forensic accountants to 

opine on Husband’s capacity for alimony. Factors affecting their opinions 
2

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 propriety 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 was $9,523 per month and 

that Husband’s net income was $15,260 per month. Husband’s 

accountant testified that Wife’s monthly need was $7,877 per month and 

that Husband’s net income was negative – [$2,331] per month. The 

conflicting testimony on Husband’s income 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 insurance that was open-ended 

and did not contain a monetary limitation on the maximum cost of those 

insurances. The trial court then ordered the Husband to purchase a life 

insurance policy to secure the alimony. The trial court failed to make

findings regarding 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 61.08(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.” § 

61.08(9), Fla. Stat. (2017) (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 award.” Ballesteros v. 

Ballesteros, 819 So. 2d 902, 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “It is wellestablished 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.” Cyphers 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 monetary 
3

limitation on the “maximum cost of such insurance.” Guralnick 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 determining that Husband’s net income 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 health 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 61.08(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 wanted to ensure the Wife would have enough alimony to meet 

her needs, particularly since she was suffering from a terminal illness. But 

the trial court failed to make the requisite findings to warrant an exception 

to section 61.08(9).

Instead, the trial court simply stated in the final judgment that the Wife 

relies upon her adult children for assistance with “daily activities, 

transportation to medical care, and emotional support.” The trial court 

then concluded the alimony needed to provide for a “residence large 

enough for one or more of her adult children to reside with her.”

The trial court’s justification impermissibly required the Husband to 

contribute to the support of adult children that he no longer had a legal 

obligation to support. See § 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 conclusion, 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 exceptional 
4

circumstances” that could justify leaving the Husband 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 appears to be the ceiling and not the floor.

If on remand the trial court includes an amount to be paid directly by 

the Husband for the Wife’s health and dental insurance, the trial court 

shall 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.

Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded with instructions.

LEVINE, C.J., MAY and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.