in the home and that husband could presently sell the home to pay the purge. We agree that the record supports the first portion of this conclusion regarding the sufficiency of the husband’s equity in the home to cover the purge amount, but we are not so sure that in the presently distressed housing market husband could immediately sell the home even if he greatly reduced the price. The trial court’s stated basis for the husband’s ability to pay depends on disbursement of the proceeds from some future potential sale of the property. Because the conclusion is speculative, and the finding regarding present ability to pay is not supported by competent substantial evidence, we grant the petition and quash the trial court’s order. See Shelton v. Shelton, 965 So.2d 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). Throughout these proceedings, wife has
holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding violation was willful and substantial holding that due to the vagueness of the amended final judgment of divorce the trial court abused its discretion in finding the appellant in contempt holding trial court abused its discretion in finding violation where state presented no evidence that defendant ever received the instruction from probation officer and thus knew about the condition holding that trial court abused its discretion in adopting the magistrates finding that husband should have funds remaining from sale of home because the finding was based on speculation not evidence holding that where there is evidence sufficient to sustain finding of trial court that prejudicial error was contained in record there is no basis for stating that trial court abused discretion in granting new trial