the husband timely appeals from four non-final, appealable orders: (1) granting the wife’s motion for temporary alimony and child support and retroactive alimony and child support; (2) finding the husband in contempt; (3) garnishing the husband’s thrift savings plan; and (4) withholding income for support. Although most of the husband’s arguments were not preserved for review, he did preserve one meritorious argument: that the amount of temporary support awarded appears to exceed his ability to pay. This error appears to be attributable, at least in part, to the trial judge’s reliance on an income figure for the husband that was contrary to the husband’s uncontroverted evidence regarding his then-current income. See Breitenbach v. Breitenbach, 838 So.2d 1266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). The trial judge appears to have compounded
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 that although trial judges have broad discretion in setting temporary alimony awards any such award must be supported by competent substantial evidence that demonstrates the need for support and the paying spouses ability to pay holding that a trial courts finding of a fraudulent lien must be supported by competent evidence holding that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering temporary alimony that exceeded the husbands ability to pay 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