4th DCA 2002). See also Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.615(e) (“The court shall include in its order a separate affirmative finding that the contemnor has the present ability to comply with the purge and the factual basis for that finding”). Pursuant to section 61.14(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), husband is presumed to have a continuing ability to pay the alimony award, and he had the burden at the contempt hearing of proving that he lacks the ability to pay. See Flores v. Bieluch, 814 So.2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (recognizing that section 61.14(5)(a) controls the burden of proof in this type of case). A trial court’s factual finding regarding ability to pay will be sustained if supported by competent substantial evidence. See, e.g., Cleveland v. Cleveland, 841 So.2d 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). Present Ability to Pay At the February 22,
holding that where there is competent evidence to support the courts findings the admission of incompetent evidence is not prejudicial holding that a husband cannot be required to pay a support award that exceeds his financial ability holding that a trial courts finding of a fraudulent lien must be supported by competent evidence 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 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