these circumstances, requiring Robert to pay Nicole’s attorneys’ fees constituted an abuse of discretion. Gaudette v. Gaudette, 890 So.2d 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Derrevere v. Derrevere, 924 So.2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Bridge-The-Gap Alimony Although we have found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s award of permanent periodic alimony in this case, the trial court clearly expressed frustration during the proceeding with its lack of ability to consider a short-term alimony award to aid Nicole in making her transition to single life. Section 61.08, Florida Statutes, does not preclude such an award, and the other four district courts of appeal in Florida have expressly recognized bridge-the-gap alimony. See, e.g., Shea v. Shea, 572 So.2d 558, 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (<HOLDING>); Borchard v. Borchard, 730 So.2d 748, 753
recognizing that family court may under special circumstances require a supporting spouse to secure an alimony obligation with a life insurance policy 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 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