FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County. Robert M.
Baker of Baker & Rhodes, Attorneys at Law, Callahan, for
K. Alvarez of Alvarez & Wallace, P.A., Fernandina Beach,
the Husband in a pending dissolution action, appeals the
trial court's temporary support order. The order requires
Husband to pay child support and to continue paying family
and household expenses, as he had been doing voluntarily, and
requires the company in which he is a partner to continue
paying his wife a weekly stipend. We remand the trial
court's order requiring Husband to continue paying these
family and household expenses. We reverse the portion of the
award requiring the Husband's company to continue paying
awards of temporary alimony are within a trial court's
broad discretion, the record must contain competent,
substantial evidence that demonstrates the receiving
spouse's need for support and the paying spouse's
ability to pay. de Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 19 So.3d
1110, 1112-13 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Driscoll v.
Driscoll, 915 So.2d 771, 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). If an
award is in excess of a party's ability to pay, then it
is not supported by competent, substantial evidence, and a
trial court abuses its discretion by ordering such an award.
Hotaling v. Hotaling, 962 So.2d 1048, 1051 (Fla. 2d
Order on Wife's Petition for Temporary Needs and
Faculties, the trial court found that since the parties'
separation, Husband had been paying the mortgage, electricity
and cable on the marital home, the insurance for the
parties' vehicles, Wife's car payment, and loan
payments on the parties' camper and motorcycle. The trial
court ordered that Husband continue to pay these expenses,
along with $250 per week for support of the parties'
minor children. The trial court also ordered Husband's
company, where he is a partner, to continue paying the Wife a
"salary" of $135.64 per week. At the hearing on
Wife's petition, Wife testified she did not perform any
work for the company in exchange for the salary.
trial court, however, did not make a specific finding as to
Husband's ability to pay. The evidence and testimony was
conflicting: Husband's financial affidavit stated a net
monthly income of $4, 023.08 and a gross annual income in
2015 of $57, 200; at the hearing, Wife testified that Husband
earned that amount, and Husband and Wife both testified that
Husband's income was $1, 100 per week, however, Husband
also testified his income was "[s]eventy-two
the trial court did not make a specific finding as to the
specific amounts for the expenses Husband was required to
continue paying, and Husband's and Wife's financial
affidavits differ materially in stating each party's
income and the amounts of household expenses. Husband's
financial affidavit lists "Monthly mortgage or
rent" of $2, 591.46, yet under "Liabilities"
he lists "Suntrust (mortgage)" of $1, 396.46.
Wife's financial affidavit lists the mortgage payment as
$1, 259.45 per month, yet she testified that Husband had been
paying the mortgage since their separation, which she
estimated was $1, 400.
determining whether to award alimony or maintenance, the
court shall first make a specific factual determination as to
whether either party has an actual need for alimony or
maintenance and whether either party has the ability to pay
alimony or maintenance." § 61.08(2) Fla. Stat.
(2016). Where the basis for an award is reasonably clear and
supported by the record, an appellate court should not
reverse for absence of statutory findings in the written
order. Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So.2d 584, 585
(Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Here, the trial court's lack of
statutory findings frustrates appellate review because the
record indicates differing claims as to Husband's net
income and the amount of support needed, making it impossible
to determine on appeal whether the award is within
Husband's ability to pay. Husband and Wife continue to
argue two different values as to Husband's income and the
amount of support owed. Depending on the facts, the trial
court's award may be within Husband's ability to pay
and thus within the trial court's discretion to award, or
in excess of Husband's ability to pay and thus an abuse
of the trial court's discretion to award. We remand to
the trial court for a specific factual determination as to
the amount of Wife's need, Husband's ability to pay,
and any other factors described in section 61.08, Florida
Statutes, to establish a basis for the award.
the trial court's order that Husband's company
continue to pay Wife's salary, Husband's company has
not been joined as a party to the dissolution action, and
"the trial court has no power to order a transfer of
corporate assets without joinder of the corporation."
Ashourian. v. Ashourian, 483 So.2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA
1986); see also Minsky v. Minsky, 779 So.2d 375, 377
(Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that in dissolution action,
"the trial court does not have jurisdiction to
adjudicate property rights of nonparties"). While the
trial court has the authority to distribute a spouse's
interest in company stock, it does not have the authority to
distribute assets of the non-joined company itself. See
Mathes v. Mathes, 91 So.3d 207, 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012);
Minsky, 779 So.2d at 377; Ashourian, 483
So.2d at 486-87.
courts have expanded the rule barring transfer of non-party
corporate assets to also bar transfer of assets owned by
non-party limited liability companies. Ehman v.
Ehman, 156 So.3d 7, 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (holding it was
"error to award property owned by [Husband's limited
liability company] to the Wife as part of the equitable
distribution of marital assets"). Here, Husband's
company, from which Wife receives a stipend, is a limited
liability company. The trial court had no authority to order
a non-party company to pay a salary to someone who does not
work for that company, and the trial court erred by doing so.
therefore remand to the trial court for a specific factual
determination as to Wife's need and Husband's ability
to pay, and any other relevant factors under section 61.08,
Florida Statutes, to establish a basis for the award. We
reverse the portion ...