Among other rulings in the opinion issued today by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Walters v. Walters, that Court reversed the lower tribunal’s finding that the Former Husband had divested assets by purchasing vintage automobiles for his business. As the Former Husband’s intent was to provide for income to pay support, the finding was in error. In addition, the Fourth District affirmed the lower court’s denial of retroactive modification of alimony in light of the finding that the Former Husband had been able to pay the alimony during the period of time in question. The Court also rejected the Former Husband’s claim that more than 60% of his income had been awarded in support, as they counted additional sources of income the Former Husband did not. The lower court was reversed, however, for failing to consider the Former Wife’s current needs in its consideration of the modification petition.