the income from trusts which had been established in their names by the maternal grandparents. Despite the father’s request for a guidelines child support award, the trial court ordered no child support by either party, but ordered the parties to “share equally [in] the children’s private school expenses as well as medical and dental insurance premiums and expenses.” Id. at 179. On appeal, the court held that, while the trial court properly considered the needs of the children and the custody situation, the court erred by failing to make adequate findings as to the earning ability of each parent and determining a guideline amount before ultimately exercising its discretion to deviate from the guideline suggestion. Id.; see also Navarro v. Navarro, 906 So.2d 341, 342 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>), and Escribano v. Coviello, 698 So.2d 934
holding that final judgment ordering 4000 in monthly alimony created presumption in subsequent proceedings that husband had ability to pay that amount holding that benefits in excess of the support obligation could not be credited against future support holding that the trial court had erred in imposing an obligation to pay child support when clear and convincing evidence established that the husband was not the father of the child holding that it is plain error for a trial court to require a defendant to pay courtappointed attorney fees in the absence of legally sufficient evidence that defendant has the ability to pay the amount imposed holding that a determination by the trial court of a clear and definite amount for support is necessary in establishing a partys ability to pay and in enforcing the obligation in future proceedings