Earle CUSHMAN, Appellant,
v.
Jean CUSHMAN, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Mark A. Neumaier, Tampa, for appellant.
William J. Terry of Terry & Dittmar, Tampa, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises from a final judgment in dissolution of marriage entered Decеmber 11, 1989, in which the trial court imputed income to the husband. We reverse based on the lack of record evidence.
The parties were married for twenty-six years before their separation in November 1987. They had two daughters during the marriage, and one was a sixteen-year old minor at the time of the trial. The wife filed a petition for separate maintenance on November 17, 1988. The husband responded with a counterpetition for dissolution of marriage on February 13, 1989.
Prior to the pаrties' separation, the husband was employed as the state coordinator of cross-culture ministry for the Church of God in Florida. The husband received $1,643 per month as his gross salary and an additional travel allowance of $650 per month and a housing allowance of $766.01 per month due to necessary travel expenses. One of the prerequisites for the husband's job was that he be married.
Once it came tо the church's attention that the husband was separated, he had only two choiсes: reconcile with his wife or have his employment as state coordinatоr terminated. The chief executive officer of the church advised the husband that resigning would be in his best interest. The *486 husband tendered a letter of resignation on January 5, 1989. Hе was offered an unsalaried opportunity to evangelize through local сhurches of the Church of God. In that church, an evangelist is an itinerant teacher сalled on by local churches for a series of services. His job carries nеither a salary, a fixed income, nor any benefits of the state level. Instead, the evangelist is paid on a per job basis. The husband's average gross income as an evangelist, omitting the first two months when he was just starting, was $1,035 per month. Averaging only the last three months' yields, he earned $1,292 per month gross before consideration of necessary travel expenses, taxes, or social security.
The trial court's order stated:
The husband testified that he had not made any effort to obtain employment other than within the limits of the Church оf Christ [sic] organization. His witnesses conceded that it was not unusual or inappropriate for the husband to seek to serve in a ministerial position with other churches which have different rules relative to ministers whose marriages have been dissolved. Likewise, the husband acknowledged that he had not made any effort to obtain any form of employment in marketing, counseling, or other fields which he engaged in as рart of his ministry. It is reasonable to believe that the husband could obtain employment earning $30,000 per year as he has done so previously and has not presentеd any information to indicate that he would not be able to do so now.
The record before this court is devoid of competent evidence of his earning сapacity.
A court may impute income to a party who has no income or is earning less than is available to him based upon a showing that the party has the capability to earn more by the use of his best efforts. Desilets v. Desilets,
The trial court had no basis for its finding that the husband has the ability to еarn $30,000 per year. Therefore, we reverse the alimony and child support award and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing at which the trial court mаy consider evidence of the earnings and earning capacity of the husbаnd. The trial court can then make a determination of alimony and child support based on substantial competent evidence of the earning capacity of the husband.
PARKER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.