Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JUDD SHAW, Appellant, v. ALYSON SHAW, Appellee. No. 4D21-2556 [April 6, 2022] Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; James L. Martz, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502021DR002873XXXSB. Jonathan Z. Schiller and Mark A. Levy of Brinkley Morgan, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant. Jane Kreusler-Walsh, Rebecca Mercier Vargas, and Stephanie L. Serafin of Kreusler-Walsh, Vargas & Serafin, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Lewis R. Shafer and Stephanie R. Amkraut of Shafer Cohen, LLP, Boca Raton, for appellee. MAY, J. The husband appeals a nonfinal order granting temporary child support and alimony. He argues in part that the trial court erred in failing to differentiate the amount awarded between alimony and child support. We agree and reverse. The wife petitioned for dissolution of the marriage. The court dismissed the first two actions without prejudice for either party to refile. In this petition, the wife moved for temporary child support and alimony. At the hearing on the wife’s motion for temporary relief, her forensic accountant testified to the husband’s gross monthly income between June 2020 and 2021. The forensic accountant testified the wife is a stay-at- home mother and receives monthly income through an irrevocable trust, but her expenses are much greater than her income. Testimony established the parties have significant liquid, marital assets. They have money in an escrow account from the sale of a boat slip and membership in a private yacht club. They have investment property under contract and have funds in bank and brokerage accounts. The wife’s forensic accountant also testified that based on the child support guidelines, the husband should pay either $2,786 or $2,472 per month depending on the rate of income. The accountant also recommended the husband’s monthly alimony obligation. The husband’s forensic accountant did not testify at the hearing, but his hearing notebook was entered into evidence. The notebook showed a large amount in liquid assets. The husband testified that his income was reduced due to Covid-19 and he had to pay a significant settlement to his former law partner in a federal lawsuit. After the hearing, the court found the wife had a need for alimony and the husband had the ability to pay. The court ordered the husband to pay the wife $10,000 per month in undifferentiated alimony and child support beginning in September 2021. The court made the alimony and child support award retroactive to June 2020, the date the wife filed her first petition for dissolution. The court found the husband owes the wife $142,414 in retroactive undifferentiated alimony and child support. 1 The court further ordered that monies from the sale of the parties’ boat slip be distributed 75% to the wife and 25% to the husband. Once the sale of the parties’ investment property finalized, the wife was to receive 75% of the proceeds and the husband was to receive 25%. The court ordered that any monies the wife receives over and above 50% of the value of the listed assets shall first be applied to the husband’s support arrearages. If the wife did not receive sufficient funds from the additional 25% of the value of the assets to satisfy the husband’s arrearages, the husband was to add $1,000 per month to his monthly payments. The court’s order states the award “is without prejudice for reallocation by the Court at trial in this matter and/or for the Court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs at the time of trial.” The husband’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The husband now appeals the order awarding temporary relief. 1 The wife was requesting over $600,000 in attorney’s fees and costs. The court found it hard “to fathom $600,000 that’s been spent on litigation.” It did not award temporary attorney’s fees. 2 The trial court has broad discretion over temporary relief awards. Coviello v. Coviello, 89 So. 3d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). We review temporary support orders for an abuse of discretion. Mejia v. Mejia, 295 So. 3d 816, 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). The criteria for temporary alimony are: (1) need of the requesting spouse and (2) the ability of the other spouse to pay. Stern v. Stern, 907 So. 2d 701, 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The husband argues the trial court’s order does not properly make findings to support the temporary support award. However, the trial court made specific findings on the husband and wife’s respective net incomes and the wife’s needs. Based on those facts and figures, the trial court found the wife had a need and the husband had the ability to pay. The trial court’s findings are supported by the wife’s forensic accountant’s hearing testimony. Next, the husband argues the trial court erred by failing to calculate alimony and child support separately. We have held it error for a trial court to award undifferentiated spousal and child support rather than calculating the amounts separately. Blum v. Blum, 769 So. 2d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). There, the trial court “failed to identify which share of the award was for child support and which was intended to be alimony. Thus, we [could not] determine whether the temporary child support portion of the award is appropriate in relation to the child support guidelines.” Id. Here, the trial court made the same error. It made a lump sum monthly award but did not differentiate between the alimony and child support amounts. We must therefore reverse and remand the case to the trial court to differentiate between the amount of child support and the amount of alimony. We affirm in all other respects. Affirmed in part; Reversed in part and Remanded. CONNER, C.J., and DAMOORGIAN, J., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 3