ROGER MALOCH
v.
LAURA DAVIS F/K/A LAURA MALOCH
PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. LAMBERT, C.J., and EDWARDS, J., concur. EISNAUGLE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, with opinion.
Case No. 5D21-2493 LT Case No. 2007-DR-0920 EISNAUGLE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. Former Husband argues, inter alia, that a miscalculation of alimony appears on the face of the judgment. I agree, but I cannot discern if the miscalculation is in the trial court’s assessment of Former Wife’s need or in the alimony amount itself. Therefore, I would reverse for the trial court to reconsider both calculations. See Poropat v. Poropat, 54 So. 3d 507, 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (“[W]e reverse and remand to the trial court to correct the mathematical error which is reflected on the face of the order.” (citation omitted)). I would otherwise affirm.