DOUGLAS A. MELDRUM v. CATHERINE BERGAMO-MELDRUM

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DOUGLAS A. MELDRUM, Appellant,

v.

CATHERINE BERGAMO-MELDRUM, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3481

[October 2, 2019]

Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Karen M. Miller, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502018DR002493XXXXNB.

Daniel A. Bushell of Bushell Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Justin C. Carlin of The Carlin Law Firm, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Matthew S. Nugent and Adam M. Zborowski of Nugent Zborowski, North Palm Beach, for appellee.

KUNTZ, J.

The Wife petitioned for dissolution of marriage from the Husband. At issue in this appeal are four interlocutory orders entered on the same day. Those orders: (1) granted the Wife’s verified motion for temporary injunction; (2) granted the Wife’s motion for temporary relief; (3) denied the Husband’s “urgent” motion to dissolve notice of lis pendens or require Wife to post bond; and (4) denied the Husband’s motion for entry of order establishing temporary support obligations and for interim equitable distribution. We reverse and remand, in part, and otherwise affirm without discussion.

i. The Court Erred When It Entered a Temporary Relief Order Without Making a Finding of Net Income

We address the Husband’s argument that the court erred when it failed to make a finding of the Husband’s net income in the temporary relief order.

A court errs when it enters a temporary support order that “exceeds or nearly exhausts a party’s income.” Wilder v. Wilder, 42 So. 3d 961, 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Bolton v. Bolton, 898 So. 2d 1084, 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)). To make that determination, the law requires the court to make a finding of net income when fashioning temporary relief. See Elias v. Elias, 168 So. 3d 301, 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); see also Bengisu v. Bengisu, 12 So. 3d 283, 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (reversing and remanding where “the trial court failed to make specific findings indicating the source and amount of husband’s imputed income” (citation omitted)).

Because the court did not make a finding of net income, we cannot evaluate the Husband’s claim that the temporary relief order exhausted his income. As a result, we reverse the temporary relief order and remand for further proceedings.

ii. Conclusion

The temporary relief order is reversed for failure to make a finding of net income and remanded for additional findings. The orders are otherwise affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded in part. WARNER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

• • * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.