Miller, as excessive. We agree and reverse. Based on the testimony as presented at the wife’s temporary relief hearing, the court found that the husband has a net monthly income of $11,666. It ordered him to pay $2,580 per month in basic support to the wife and, on top of that amount, also required that he pay her monthly expenses totalling approximately $9,000. It further ordered that he pay her $30,000 as temporary attorney’s fees and $10,000 as temporary costs. The basic temporary support and expense awards together constitute nearly all of the husband’s net monthly income. As such, we find that the present award places an undue burden on the husband based on the record evidence and findings as to his ability to pay. See Benenfeld v. Benenfeld, 705 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(<HOLDING>); Chereskin v. Chereskin, 665 So.2d 1133 (Fla.
holding that in order to obtain a reduction in child support payments a parent must show that his lack of ability to pay is not due to his own voluntaiy act holding that court not required to find ability to pay before imposing criminal fine holding that a husband cannot be required to pay a support award that exceeds his financial ability holding that competent substantial evidence did not support the trial courts conclusory finding that husband had the present ability to pay and noting that the presumption of section 61145a florida statutes is rebuttable holding that both husband and wife are obligated to support each other based on relative ability to pay