discuss how his financial problems impact his ability to pay alimony. Although the trial court determined that the former husband had the “responsibility” to provide alimony, without factual findings concerning the funds he has available, we cannot determine whether the former husband actually has the ability to pay $5,000 per month in alimony. III. Child Support We review a trial court’s ruling on child support arrearages for an abuse of discretion. Thompson v. Thompson, 989 So.2d 1237, 1239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Although the trial court has discretion to determine how child support arrearages will be paid, it must take the paying spouse’s ability to pay into account. See Alois v. Alois, 937 So.2d 171, 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Orsini v. Orsini, 909 So.2d 558, 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>). Here, the trial court abused its discretion
holding that the trial court abused its discretion in establishing an arrearages repayment plan without making any factual findings concerning the paying spouses ability to pay holding that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering temporary alimony that exceeded the husbands ability to pay holding that the trial court had abused its discretion in dismissing the case without allowing appellants an opportunity to amend holding that a trial court cannot decide the issue of attorneys fees without findings as to one spouses ability to pay and the others need holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact