With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or child support. Thus, even if the Former Wife established need, the trial court abused its discretion in accepting and adopting the magistrate’s recommended order because there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the magistrate’s determination that the Former Husband has the ability to pay. See Kearley v. Kearley, 745 So.2d 987, 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the appellee $1400 per month in alimony. According to the financial affidavit, appellant’s monthly net income is $3,380.41. After deducting his average monthly expenses from his net income, including the $1400 alimony, appellant is left with a deficiency of $818.59 per month.”); see also McCann v. Crumblish-McCann, 21 So.3d 170, 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (<HOLDING>); Hotaling v. Hotaling, 962 So.2d 1048, 1051

A: holding that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering temporary alimony that exceeded the husbands ability to pay
B: holding in part that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction in the absence of a showing that the plaintiff did not have an adequate remedy at law
C: holding that the trial court exceeded its discretion because its judgment created financial obligations for the husband that after deducting the wifes periodicalimony award from the husbands net income exceeded his remaining income
D: holding that although trial judges have broad discretion in setting temporary alimony awards any such award must be supported by competent substantial evidence that demonstrates the need for support and the paying spouses ability to pay
A.