criterion for fixing an amount of alimony is—after a payee’s need'—-a present ability of the payor to sustain it. See § 61.08(2) Fla. Stat. (2005); Zold v. Zold, 911 So.2d 1222 (Fla.2005) (trial courts should consider only that portion of income available to spouse in calculating alimony); Olds v. Olds, 555 So.2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (trial court should have considered husband’s ability at present time, not what might occur in the future); Kernan v. Kernan, 495 So.2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (same). There is an important reason for this. The failure to pay alimony may be coerced through the contempt powers of the court. A final judgment to pay alimony carries with it a presumption that the payor is currently able to do so. Martyak v. Martyak, 873 So.2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>). Such coercion is absolutely dependent on the
holding that the ordering of a rehearing caused the judgment to not be final and appealable holding that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering temporary alimony that exceeded the husbands ability to pay holding that a husband cannot be required to pay a support award that exceeds his financial ability holding that final judgment ordering 4000 in monthly alimony created presumption in subsequent proceedings that husband had ability to pay that amount holding that a divorce judgment ordering a husband to pay 5000 in past community debts could not be enforced by a contempt judgment because it concerned money to be earned in the future