
    Paul ZIAJKA, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Dianne KNIGHT, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
    No. 5D99-749.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Sept. 8, 2000.
    
      Michael R. Walsh, Orlando, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
    Jon S. Rosenberg, Orlando, for Appel-lee/Cross-Appellant.
   THOMPSON, C.J.

Paul Ziajka appeals the financial aspects of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, and Diane Knight cross-appeals.

We find no abuse of discretion in principle with the distribution of martial assets or in the award of alimony. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980). The financial obligations imposed on Ziajka, however, exceed his ability to pay. Accordingly, we reverse for reconsideration of all of the awards of support, the awards in the nature of support, the award of attorney’s fees, and the distribution of marital assets and liabilities. See Noah v. Noah, 491 So.2d 1124, 1128 (Fla.1986) (trial court should be given an opportunity on remand to reconsider the entire distribution scheme, as these are interrelated remedies and part of one overall scheme).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

KAHN, L., Associate Judge, concurs.

GRIFFIN, J, dissents with opinion.

GRIFFIN, J.,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

The appealed judgment was entered on February 18, 1999. The income of the physician husband was approximately $198,000, or $12,234 per month net. Alimony awarded was $3,000 per month; child support, $2,400. Until the marital residence sold, husband was responsible to advance the mortgage payment of $2,430, subject to reimbursement from the proceeds of the sale for all payments made since June 1, 1997. The court also ordered payment of the children’s private school tuition of $2,192, which was reduced by a 40% contribution by wife after September 1999. The $408 car payment lasted until June 1999. Thus, the current total monthly obligation, including husband’s contribution to the marital debt, is around $7,500 per month. It is true that, before the house was sold and wife’s obligation to contribute to the tuition and medical expenses commenced, the total gross monthly pay-out was close to $11,000. But these payments were temporary, they were alleviated by the tax benefits and amounted essentially to a cash-flow problem that only husband could absorb. There was no abuse of discretion.  