dissenting:

I dissent.

Mrs. Lord did not claim nor prove a special equity in the home. She did not seek nor prove partition. Nor did she claim or prove an award of the home as lump sum alimony. It was error for the trial court to *358award Mrs. Lord, Mr. Lord’s interest in the home.

The facts before us fail to support the trial court’s award of rehabilitative alimony to Mrs. Lord. She was employed. Her ability to earn a living was not decreased by her marriage. Her net worth was equal to that of Mr. Lord. The award of rehabilitative alimony was error.

The award of attorney’s fees to Mrs. Lord was error also because her financial condition was as good as that of Mr. Lord.

I would reverse the judgment of the trial court except as to the award of the household furnishings to Mrs. Lord which I would affirm.

Our examination of the record reveals that the learned trial judge was required to make difficult decisions based upon complex and confusing evidence adduced in support of, and in opposition to, issues poorly framed by the pleadings and that he obviously attempted to “do equity”. (See F.S. 61.08(2)) We do not find that appellant has met his burden of demonstrating abuse of discretion nor reversible error. The final judgment here appealed is therefore

AFFIRMED.