Opinion
Case No. 5D20-53
03-05-2021
Ramiz MAALI, Appellant, v. Gharam MAALI, Appellee.
David Thurman Roberts, of The Roberts Family Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, and Shannon L. Akins of Law Office of Shannon L. Akins, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Terry C. Young and Jennifer R. Dixon, of Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.
David Thurman Roberts, of The Roberts Family Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, and Shannon L. Akins of Law Office of Shannon L. Akins, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.
Terry C. Young and Jennifer R. Dixon, of Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.
COHEN, J.
Ramiz Maali ("Former Husband") appeals from the trial court's corrected final judgment, which dissolved his marriage to Gharam Maali ("Former Wife"). Former Husband challenges several of the trial court's rulings, including its imputation of income to both parties, equitable distribution, award of rehabilitative alimony, and child support calculations. We find there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings and affirm in all respects except for the requirement that Former Husband pay private school tuition for the parties’ three children and the computation of child support.
The financial obligations imposed by the corrected final judgment were substantial, requiring Former Husband to pay rehabilitative alimony, child support, the housing expenses for the parties’ marital home, and private school tuition. Because of the financial obligations imposed, the evidence did not support his ability to continue paying for private school tuition. See Kaiser v. Harrison, 985 So. 2d 1226, 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (noting that trial court may order parent to pay private educational expenses where parent has ability to pay); Marshall v. Marshall, 953 So. 2d 23, 27 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) ("[W]here the husband's income is nearly exhausted on obligations imposed by the final judgment ... reasonable persons could not differ as to the impropriety of the actions taken by the trial court." (citation omitted)). While Former Husband was entitled to a credit for the housing expenses upon the sale of the marital home, that eventuality did not assist in establishing his current ability to afford the tuition. Additionally, the trial court erred in failing to deduct the rehabilitative alimony award from Former Husband's gross income for purposes of computing child support. See Calderon v. Calderon, 730 So. 2d 400, 402 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (citing § 61.30(3)(g), Fla. Stat. (2019) ). On remand, the trial court should recalculate Former Husband's child support obligation; we note that this will also impact his responsibility for uncovered medical expenses. See Mattison v. Mattison, 266 So. 3d 258, 261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) ("On remand, the court shall allocate the children's uncovered medical expenses in the same percentage as the parties’ respective child support obligation, as recalculated after redetermining Former Husband's income ....").
The record reflects that, historically, the paternal grandparents paid the private school tuition expenses.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
WALLIS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.