ordinary case should be for a specific time, and that time should be stated in the Order or Decree making the award. Preferably, that time should be fixed in relation to a specified program or goal on the part of the recipient party that will lead to self-sufficiency before that time.” Governor’s Commission’s Report, at 4. It is now well recognized that the sole purpose of temporary alimony is rehabilitation of the recipient spouse and, for that reason, an award of temporary alimony must be grounded in a finding that the recipient spouse is not self-supporting and needs training,' education, or other steps to help that spouse achieve .financial self-reliance. Reuter v. Reuter, 102 Md.App. 212, 229, 649 A.2d 24 (1994). See also Lemley v. Lemley, 102 Md.App. 266, 300, 649 A.2d 1119 (1994)(<HOLDING>). In keeping with the recommendations of the
holding that for 9year marriage where wife was 29years old and able to be selfsufficient rehabilitative alimony should have been awarded reversing permanent periodic alimony as inappropriate holding that property transferred by a spouse to avoid support obligation may be considered on the issue of property distribution as well as alimony holding that an award of temporary or rehabilitative alimony may not be made unless the recipient spouse is not selfsupporting and citing hull v hull 83 mdapp 218 220221 574 a2d 20 1990 recognizing that even though a spouse is already employed or employable an award of rehabilitative alimony may also be justified as a bridgethegap measure to aid the recipient in making the transition from a married to a single state holding that an obligation is in the nature of alimony when it is intended to provide support for the spouse rather than an equalization of property rights