### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TIBOR E. POLCZ

, Appellant,

v.

IRMA ENIKO POLCZ
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 14

- 546

[ March 18, 2015 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Timothy P. McCarthy , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502009DR007355XXXXSB

.

E. Ross Zimmerman of Zimmerman & Bayne, P.A., Tamarac, for appellant.

Doreen Inkeles of Beiner, Inkeles & Horvitz, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee.

C IKLIN
, J

.

In this post

-

judgment dissolution of mar riage case, t he former

husband appeals and the former wife cross

- appeals an order granting the former husband’s petition for modification of alimony. We find that

one meritorious issue is raised: within the modification order, the amount of alimony arrea rages purportedly owed is inconsistent with the findings regarding the amount of alimony paid . We therefore reverse and

remand for clarification of arrearages, and w e affirm on all other issues.

The parties were divorced by a final j udgment that incorporated a marital settlement agreement and awarded the former wife alimony. The

former h usband is a physician with a medical practice specializing in fertility, and at the time of the divorce, the former wife was unemployed.

The former wife ev entually found employment and s everal years after the judgment was entered , the former h usband petitioned for a downward

modification of alimony payments based on a reduction in income. The

former w ife moved for contempt for non

- payment of alimony

.2

Aft er a hearing, the trial court granted the former husband’s petition in part, reducing alimony to $1,600 per month retroactive to the month

after the petition for modification was filed. The court found that the former husband had paid $200.00 per month in alimony in the fifteen

months since his petition was filed , and that, since alimony had been

reduced retroactive ly to that time, there were no arrearages. It denied the wife’s contempt motion.

The former w ife argues that the trial court erred in determi ning that

t here were no alimony arrearages and that the court’s calculation of the

retro active modification was inaccurate. She argues and the trial court

found that the former h usband had been paying only $200.00 per

month

.

The modification order is er roneous because its mathematical findings do not support the court’s final decision as to a reduction in arrearages.

See Allison v. Allison , 605 So. 2d 130, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (remanding for clarification where it was unclear how the trial court calculated deduction in temporary alimony arrearage). 1 Although the trial court may have had some other compelling reason for eli minating

arrearage s owed by the former h usb and, it is not apparent in the

m odific ation o rder.

Accordingly, we remand this cau se to the trial court to clarify the amount of the deduction of the arrearage and ma ke any appropriate adjustments.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

W ARNER and G ERBER
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until dispositio n of timely filed motion for rehearing.

1 It appears to us that reducing the total amount of alimony owed by the total

amount found to have actually been paid leaves $21,000.00 in arrears.