In Lauro v. Lauro, 757 So. 2d 523, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), the district court interpreted this Court's statement in Diffenderfer with respect to pension plans that an "injustice would result if the trial court were to consider the same asset in calculating both property distribution and support obligations," 491 So. 2d at 267, as follows: What the supreme court meant, however, is explained by the next sentence, which is that the one-half of the husband's pension distributed to the wife could not be "considered as an asset reflecting his ability to pay." In other words, the ability of the husband in Diffenderfer to pay alimony should be based on his financial situation after equitable distribution, not before. Similarly, the needs of the wife in this case should be based on her financial situation after equitable distribution, not before. That would include her income from the pension. Section 61.08(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1997), requires trial courts to consider, when fashioning awards of alimony, "all relevant economic factors, including but not limited to: . . . the financial resources of each party, the non-marital and the marital assets and liabilities distributed to each." Section 61.08(2)(g) requires the court to consider "all sources of income available to either party." Lauro, 757 So. 2d at 524-25.