was deemed improper. In McLauchlin v. McLauchlin, 580 So.2d 812 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), for example, the party seeking permanent alimony was in her mid-30s and, like the spouse here, had primary residential custody of three children. In affirming a denial of permanent alimony the court explained: “Although this marriage was not a bri 1996) (“This was a short-term marriage, and generally permanent alimony is inappropriate unless a genuine inequity is created by the dissolution.”); Geddes v. Geddes, 530 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (no error in awarding only rehabilitative alimony after 9 year marriage to 45-year old spouse who was self sufficient before marriage and there was no reason why she could not become so again); Contogeorgos v. Contogeorgos, 482 So.2d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (<HOLDING>); Campbell v. Campbell, 432 So.2d 666 (Fla. 5th
holding that former husband was not entitled to evidentiary hearing on petition to modify alimony where he failed to demonstrate substantial change in circumstances since entry of a prior order denying modification of alimony from which he did not appeal holding that alimony obligation was discharged by social security payments received by the wife holding that husbands obligation to pay premiums on a life insurance policy for five years with wife as the beneficiary was periodic alimony 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 in case of a short term marriage a presumption against awarding permanent alimony arises but such presumption is rebuttable