Peter Molo, II v. Diana Molo

FIFTH DISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL
S TATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2024-1908
LT Case No. 2023-DR-000295
_____________________________
PETER MOLO, II,
Appellant,
v.
DIANA MOLO,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Flagler County.
Christopher A. France, Judge.
Sheila M. Ennis, of Sheila M. Ennis, P.A., Edgewater, for
Appellant.
Tonya D. Cromartie, of The Law Office of Tonya D. Cromartie,
P.A., Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
October 9, 2026
WALLIS, J.
Peter Molo, II (“Former Husband”) appeals the Amended
Final Judgment dissolving his marriage to Diana Molo (“Former
Wife”). 	He argues that the trial court erred in several respects
when it awarded Former Wife alimony and child support. 	We
agree, and reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.

2
The parties were married on May 10, 2013, and their only
child was born on June 1, 2021. In March 2023, Former Wife filed
her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, requesting sole parental
responsibility of the child, the ability to relocate with the child to
Pennsylvania to be closer to her family, imputation of income to
Former Husband, alimony, and child support.
The trial was held over two days in November 2023 and
February 2024. 	Before trial concluded, the parties entered into a
stipulation regarding the issues of the sale of the marital home,
equitable distribution, retroactive child support, and attorney’s
fees and costs.
At trial, Former Wife testified that during the marriage she
and Former Husband lived in Florida and she graduated from
nursing school as a registered nurse. In 2018, she began working
as a nurse in Palm Coast. She gave birth to the child in June 2021
and, after that, she stopped working and received disability for a
mental-health disorder. While working at the hospital in Florida,
Former Wife made $40,467 per year.
At 	the 	beginning 	of 	their 	marriage, 	Former 	Husband
managed several restaurants. 	In 2015, Former Husband began
working at AT&T as a wire technician and remained there for
approximately six years. While at AT&T, Former Husband made
approximately 	$55,000 	per 	year. 	In 	August 	2022, 	Former
Husband quit his job at AT&T. Former Wife testified that Former
Husband left his AT&T job because he was in three car accidents
in company cars during work. 	At one point in his testimony,
Former Husband confirmed that he resigned from AT&T due to
the car accidents. 	However, later, he testified that he left the
AT&T job because he had health problems that prevented him
from performing the work associated with being a wire technician.
Former 	Wife 	additionally 	testified 	that 	she, 	Former
Husband, and the child visited her parents in Pennsylvania in
August 2022. While there, Former Husband became enraged after
an altercation and he left her and the child there and returned to
Florida. 	Since that time, Former Wife and the child have lived

3
with Former Wife’s parents in Pennsylvania and Former Husband
has lived in Florida.
Former Wife also testified that, by the second day of trial in
February 2024, she had 	been 	offered 	a 	part-time 	position 	at
Bayada Home Health in Pennsylvania as an in-home pediatric
nurse. 	She believed she would be making between $29 and $30
per hour. 	Former Wife was unable to estimate the exact number
of hours that she would be working because it depended on the
child who was assigned to her.
Former Husband then testified that he was unemployed
until May 2023 when he began working at a company doing IT
support. At the time of trial, he worked between 37 and 40 hours
per week making about $20 per hour. 	Former Husband also
testified that his highest level of education was a GED, but he was
in school pursuing a Bachelor of Science degree in cybersecurity
and information assurance, which would allow him to work in
cybersecurity. He also testified that IT work pays between $43,000
and $44,000 per year. 	Former Husband explained that he can no
longer work as a wire technician because he tore his meniscus in
2020. 	When Former Wife’s attorney asked Former Husband why
he was unable to kneel for work but he could run five miles three
times per week, Former Husband was unable to answer.
Former Husband additionally testified that he has been
living in the marital home during the pending divorce. 	Since
September 2023, he has rented out a room in the home for $700
per month. He has not provided Former Wife with a portion of the
rent that he receives.
The 	trial 	court 	ultimately 	entered 	an 	Amended 	Final
Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, which granted Former Wife’s
request to relocate to Pennsylvania with the child, and awarded
Former Wife alimony and child support.1 	Specifically, the trial
court 	imputed 	income 	to 	Former 	Husband 	in 	the 	amount 	of
$55,000 per year, finding that Former Husband has voluntarily
1 Former Husband does not challenge the relocation ruling on
appeal.

4
underemployed himself and has not sought similar employment.
It additionally imputed $700 per month in income to Former
Husband, which reflected the rental income that Former Husband
had been receiving.
Based on these and other figures in the record, the trial court
found that Former Husband had some ability to pay alimony and
Former Wife had a need for alimony. 	Thus, it ordered Former
Husband to pay Former Wife $414.45 per month in durational
alimony for a period of 36 months. The trial court also calculated
Former Husband’s child support obligation to be $477.49 per
month. 	The trial court concluded that after paying alimony and
child support, Former Husband would have a monthly surplus of
$135.78. 	It also ordered that he pay Former Wife $21,000 in
retroactive temporary alimony. 	Finally, the trial court ordered
that Husband was solely responsible for the costs of transporting
the child for timesharing.
Former 	Husband 	filed 	a 	timely 	motion 	for 	rehearing
challenging 	the 	Amended 	Final 	Judgment. 	The 	trial 	court
subsequently entered an Order Supplementing and Amending
Amended 	Final 	Judgment 	of 	Dissolution 	of 	Marriage 	(“the
Supplemental Final Judgment”), which removed the retroactive
temporary alimony.
On appeal, Former Husband argues that the Amended Final
Judgment should be reversed because: (1) the trial court erred
when it imputed income to him and did not impute income to
Former Wife for full-time work; (2) the trial court did not include
the alimony awarded to Former Wife as a part of her income when
calculating Former Husband’s child support obligation; (3) there
were internal inconsistencies in the Amended Final Judgment; (4)
the 	Amended 	Final 	Judgment 	and 	the 	Supplemental 	Final
Judgment do not include written findings of fact as required by
statute; (5) the trial court erred in including $700 in rental income
from the marital home in Former Husband’s income for alimony
purposes; and (6) the alimony and child support awards exceeded
Former Husband’s ability to pay and left him with a monthly
deficit.

5
We affirm without comment Former Husband’s arguments
related to the imputation of income, including imputing $700 per
month in rental income to Former Husband.2 	However, for the
following reasons, we reverse on the remaining issues.3
First, the trial court failed to include Former Husband’s
alimony 	award 	when 	calculating 	Former 	Wife’s 	income 	for
purposes of the child support obligation. 	This is reversible error.
See § 61.30(2)(a)9., Fla. Stat. (2024) (“Gross income shall include,
but is not limited to, the following . . . Spousal support . . . ordered
in the marriage before the court.”); Christensen v. Christensen, 147
So. 3d 118, 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (reversing child support award
and remanding for recalculation where the trial court did not
include its award of alimony as part of wife’s income when it
calculated husband’s child support obligation).
Second, the Amended Final Judgment listed Former Wife’s
net monthly income as $3,177.42 and her gross monthly income as
$3,364.00. 	However, 	the 	Child 	Support 	Worksheet 	that 	was
attached to the Amended Final Judgment listed Former Wife’s net
monthly income as $2,843.32 and her gross monthly income as
$3,333.00. 	It is unclear which figures the trial court used when
determining the child support award and whether those figures
were supported by competent, substantial evidence. Therefore, we
reverse and remand for correction or clarification by the trial court.
See Veith v. Veith, 315 So. 3d 1259, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)
(reversing 	final 	judgment 	and 	remanding 	where 	there 	were
2 Former Husband did not preserve his argument that the
trial court erred when it included the rental income in Former
Husband’s imputed income. See Moody v. Newton, 264 So. 3d 292,
294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (“Because the alleged error first appeared
in the final judgment, Former Wife was required to bring this
matter to the lower court’s attention in a motion for rehearing.”).
3 Former Wife concedes that the court erred when it failed to
include the alimony award when calculating Former Husband’s
child 	support 	obligation. 	She 	also 	concedes 	that 	remand 	is
necessary because the amounts in the child support guidelines
were inconsistent with the Amended Final Judgment.

6
internal inconsistencies as to the parties’ net monthly incomes for
both parties); Weymouth v. Weymouth, 87 So. 3d 30, 36 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2012) (“A dissolution judgment that is internally inconsistent
should be reversed and remanded for correction or clarification.”).
Third, 	while 	the 	Amended 	Final 	Judgment 	and 	the
Supplemental Final Judgment found that Former Husband had
the ability to pay alimony and Former Wife had a need for alimony,
they do not include written findings of fact as required by section
61.08(2)(b), Florida Statutes. 	It is well settled that a trial court’s
failure to consider all appropriate factors under section 61.08(2)(b)
when determining alimony is a legal error that requires reversal.
See Jimenez v. Jimenez, 211 So. 3d 76, 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
(reversing and remanding award of permanent alimony where
trial court did not consider all of the factors contained within
section 61.08(2)); Matajek v. Skowronska, 927 So. 2d 981, 986 (Fla.
5th DCA 2006) (recognizing that trial court’s failure to consider all
appropriate factors under section 61.08(2) in determining alimony
is error requiring reversal). Here, the trial court considered some
of the statutory factors when deciding to award alimony to Former
Wife, but it failed to consider all relevant factors. Accordingly, we
reverse and remand so that the trial court can consider all of the
statutory factors as required by section 61.08(2)(b).
Fourth, 	the 	trial 	court 	erred 	when 	it 	failed 	to 	consider
payments that Former Husband made for the child’s travel-related
expenses when calculating Former Husband’s income.4 See Marini
v. Kellett, 279 So. 3d 248, 255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (“Given that the
travel expenses are necessary expenses incurred pursuant to court
order and that the parties both professed difficulty paying such
exorbitant expenses, we find the court abused its discretion in
failing to consider the expenses when calculating the child support
award. 	The court also abused its discretion in failing to consider
the travel expenses when determining the parties’ income and
4 We note that Former Husband does not challenge the trial
court’s decision to require him to pay all of the child’s travel
expenses. 	Instead, he argues that those expenses should have
been included when calculating his income because he is required
to pay for the child’s travel.

7
Mother’s ability to pay.”). 	The trial court found that Former
Husband had a monthly surplus of $135.78 after accounting for the
alimony and child support awards. 	At trial, Former Husband
testified 	that 	the 	travel 	expenses 	associated 	with 	the 	child’s
timesharing totaled $500 per month. When that figure is included
in Former Husband’s monthly expenses, Former Husband has a
monthly 	deficit. 	Ordering 	support 	that 	exceeded 	Former
Husband’s ability to pay was an abuse of discretion. See Hawryluk
v. Hawryluk, 365 So. 3d 477, 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (recognizing
that a trial court abuses its discretion by awarding a support
award that exceeds or nearly exhausts a party’s income).
For these reasons, we reverse the Amended Final Judgment
and the Supplemental Final Judgment and remand for the trial
court to recalculate child support. 	On remand, the trial court
should also reevaluate whether alimony is appropriate under these
circumstances and, if so, recalculate the amount of the alimony
award. In all other respects, we affirm.
A FFIRMED in part, R EVERSED in part; and R EMANDED with
Instructions.
B OATWRIGHT and M ACIVER, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not 	final 	until 	disposition 	of 	any 	timely 	and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________