With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Averbeck’s point that Burkley failed to provide expert testimony is similarly unavailing. Courts have not required expert testimony to hold that lower courts did not have sufficient evidentiary bases for imputing income against partially disabled spouses. See Gerthe v. Gerthe, 857 So.2d 306, 307-308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversing the trial court’s finding that the wife could work at least part-time, though she suffered migraines and difficulty walking or sitting, because the finding was not supported by evidence); Tarnawski v. Tarnawski, 851 So.2d 239, 241-242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (reversing the support award “for reconsideration upon a re-evaluation of the wife’s ability to contribute to her own support and that of her child”); Gruber v. Gruber, 857 So.2d 329, 330-331 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). The employment history of a partially

A: holding that the trial court erred in finding that marital property was the former wifes separate property based on a nonseparation agreement in which the former husband purported to relinquish any interest in the marital property
B: holding that property held by husband and wife in tenancy by entirety is exempt from attachment or execution for the sole debts of husband
C: holding that alimony was justified where wife was homemaker with lesser job skills than husband wife had lesser earning capacity and husband was guilty of marital misconduct
D: holding that despite the wifes assertion that the husband  should be able to sit behind a computer the record contained no evidence or testimony that the former husband was employable or capable of earning an income
D.