DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TIBOR E. POLCZ,

Appellant,

v.

IRMA ENIKO POLCZ,

Appellee.

No. 4D14-546

[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.

CIKLIN, J.

In this post-judgment dissolution of marriage case, the 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 arrearages purportedly owed is inconsistent with the 

findings regarding the amount of alimony paid. We therefore reverse and 

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

The parties were divorced by a final judgment that incorporated a 

marital settlement agreement and awarded the former wife alimony. The 

former husband 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 eventually found employment and several years after the 

judgment was entered, the former husband petitioned for a downward 

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

former wife moved for contempt for non-payment of alimony. 
2

After 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 retroactively to that time, there were no arrearages. It denied 

the wife’s contempt motion.

The former wife argues that the trial court erred in determining that 

there were no alimony arrearages and that the court’s calculation of the

retroactive modification was inaccurate. She argues and the trial court 

found that the former husband had been paying only $200.00 per 

month.

The modification order is erroneous 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 eliminating 

arrearages owed by the former husband, it is not apparent in the 

modification order.

Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court to clarify the 

amount of the deduction of the arrearage and make any appropriate 

adjustments.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

WARNER and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition 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.