Appellant Tami Molina (“Former Wife”) timely appeals the trial courts dissolution of marriage final judgment. Former Wife petitioned for dissolution from appellee Moises Molina (“Former Husband”), and the trial court granted the petition. Former Wife argues on appeal the dissolution order contains a flawed misconduct finding, fails to set forth sufficient alimony calculations, and fails to make written findings on Former Wifes entitlement to attorneys fees. We agree and reverse and remand.
Background
Former Wife petitioned for dissolution, seeking equitable distribution, alimony, and attorneys fees and costs.
At the trial on the petition, Former Wife testified that shortly after the parties separated, the parties’ joint bank account had $30,000 remaining. She explained that when she discovered Former Husband had removed $2,000 from the account, she also withdrew money from the account, leaving $1,400 remaining. As justification for her withdrawal, she explained that Former Husband had been the sole contributor to the parties’ finances but he had stopped contributing his paychecks after separation; this prevented Former Wife from having money for living expenses and household bills. Former Wife testified that she had spent the withdrawn funds to pay for these expenses and to pay her attorneys retainer.
Former Wife cited to these “living expenses” to justify her alimony request. She provided some testimony to explain the necessity of these expenses, contending that many expenses were household payments that she covered during the marriage and that Former Husband had stopped paying after separation. She also proffered a health insurance agent to testify as to the reasonable costs of health insurance, because she was no longer on Former Husbands health insurance plan. The agent set forth several different valuations, depending on a given plans coverage and Former Wifes income.
Former Husband did not object to any of Former Wifes exhibits and did not present any evidence beyond a short statement that he did not think he could continue working for much longer because of his health issues. He did not present evidence relating to Former Wife withdrawing money from the joint account.
After the trial, the trial court entered its final dissolution judgment. The trial court found that Former Wifes withdrawal of $30,000 from the parties’ joint account constituted “misconduct,” deeming Former Wifes testimony not credible regarding how she spent the money. Because of the misconduct finding, the trial court included the $30,000 in the equitable distribution calculation. Despite finding Former Wifes testimony not credible that she had spent the withdrawn money on attorneys fees, the court found that because Former Wife had spent the withdrawn money on attorneys fees, she would bear the cost of her own fees. The trial court did not make findings on Former Wifes need for fees or Former Husbands ability to pay her fees.
Former Wife moved for rehearing, arguing the trial courts finding of misconduct was not supported by competent substantial evidence because Former Husband did not offer any evidence to rebut Former Wifes testimony on how the money was spent. The motion was denied, and this timely appeal followed.
Analysis
Former Wife argues that Former Husband presented no evidence to support a finding that she had committed misconduct, because her unrebutted testimony established the money was spent on household bills, living expenses, and her attorneys fees. Next, she argues the trial court failed to set forth an expense calculation, thereby preventing us from reviewing the trial courts reasonableness determination. Finally, she argues that the trial court failed to make a finding on Former Wifes need for attorneys fees and Former Husbands ability to pay those fees.
We review findings in a dissolution proceeding for competent substantial evidence and for abuse of discretion. Welton v. Welton, 267 So. 3d 6, 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Bateh v. Bateh, 98 So. 3d 750, 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).
The trial courts misconduct finding was not supported by competent substantial evidence. It is error to include in a dissolution proceeding dissipated marital funds where one party presents unrebutted testimony on how the funds were used and there is no evidence of misconduct with respect to that use. Van Maerssen v. Gerdts, 295 So. 3d 819, 824-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020); Levy v. Levy, 900 So. 2d 737, 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Karimi v. Karimi, 867 So. 2d 471, 475 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Here, Former Wife presented unrebutted testimony she had spent the withdrawn money on household bills, her living expenses, and her attorneys fees. None of these uses of marital funds was improper, and simply moving money from a joint account is an insufficient basis on which to sustain a misconduct finding.
1
The trial courts misconduct determination must be reversed. See Ramos v. Ramos, 230 So. 3d 893, 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“Former Husbands use of the coins, to pay for household expenses, does not necessarily constitute ‘intentional misconduct.’ ” (quotation omitted)); Cooper v. Cooper, 639 So. 2d 153, 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (improper to credit IRA spent on alimony, marital home mortgage payments, and living expenses where there was no finding that the IRA was depleted by misconduct or was used for a wrongful purpose); see also Bush v. Bush, 824 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding that dissipation of some marital assets for an improper purpose does not justify attributing other assets against that party).
Remand is required where the findings in an equitable distribution case frustrate an appellate courts review. Santiago v. Santiago, 51 So. 3d 637, 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). The dissolution order does not explain how it calculated Former Wifes expenses. Thus, we remand for the trial court to make those findings and explain the basis for its alimony and equitable distribution calculations. See Horowitz v. Horowitz, 273 So. 3d 263, 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (failure to make all findings for monthly expenses where there were possible differing amounts warrants reversal and remand); Olguin v. Olguin, 339 So. 3d 1061, 1065 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (failure to make findings sufficient to allow review of the amount of alimony is reversible error).
Finally, the trial courts order failed to make findings on Former Wifes need for attorneys fees and Former Husbands ability to pay fees, which is required even if there is a misconduct finding. See Lopez v. Lopez, 385 So. 3d 1090, 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). On remand, the trial court shall make the proper findings. We express no opinion on whether Former Wife is or is not entitled to attorneys fees above the amount which she had paid from the joint account funds.
Conclusion
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for recalculation of the alimony and equitable distribution awards without a finding of misconduct. The trial court shall set forth its findings on the calculation of Former Wifes expenses. The trial court shall also make a finding on Former Wifes need for attorneys fees and Former Husbands ability to pay attorneys fees.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
FOOTNOTES
1
. We also note that the trial court incorrectly found that $30,000 was withdrawn. Former Wife testified without opposition that she did not withdraw the full amount. Additionally, the trial court made inconsistent findings as to whether it believed Former Wifes testimony on how she spent the withdrawn money and offered no explanation as to what it deemed to be improper expenditures.
Forst, J.
Gross and Artau, JJ., concur.