Full Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D19-1331 _____________________________ YANN GERVILLE-REACHE, Former Husband, Appellant, v. INA GERVILLE-REACHE, Former Wife, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. W. Gregg McCaulie, Judge. June 11, 2020 PER CURIAM. The former husband appeals from a trial court order in which the court denied his supplemental petition to modify child support. In his first issue on appeal, the husband argues the trial court erred by imputing income to him. We disagree. The trial court made detailed findings supporting its ruling that the husband’s decision to abandon his former career in logistics to build a real estate career was a voluntary underemployment to pursue his own interests. Voluntary underemployment is a sufficient basis upon which to impute income. See Windsor v. Windsor, 262 So. 3d 853, 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). We affirm the portion of the order denying the former husband’s supplemental petition to modify child support. 1 The former husband also argues that the portion of the trial court’s order requiring him to pay child support due in June 2018 through January 2019 should be reversed because there was no evidence that those amounts were still due. The former wife concedes error, and the record shows that the former husband had become current on the payments in December 2018. We reverse that portion of the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings. 2 AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. WOLF, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ 1 We also affirm the portion of the order awarding attorney’s fees to the former wife as challenged in the former husband’s second issue on appeal. 2 We decline to consider the former wife’s argument that the trial court meant to order the former husband to pay tuition arrearages as that argument was not preserved by filing a motion for rehearing below. See Hentze v. Denys, 88 So. 3d 307, 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (concluding an alleged error that appeared for the first time in the final order was unpreserved because the aggrieved party failed to file a motion for rehearing). Further, the former wife did not raise this issue in a cross-appeal; therefore, it is not properly before the Court for consideration. See MacKenzie v. Centex Homes, 208 So. 3d 790, 792 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (recognizing in the absence of a cross-appeal, the appellee may only defend the lower court’s order and may not seek affirmative relief from any part of the order). 2 William S. Graessle and Jonathan W. Graessle of William S. Graessle, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant. Stephanie A. Sussman of Bledsoe, Jacobson, Schmidt, Wright & Sussman, Jacksonville, for Appellee. 3