Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): awarding bridge-the-gap, rather than permanent alimony. “Permanent periodic alimony is used to provide the needs and the necessities of life to a former spouse as they have been established during the marriage of the parties.” Rosecan v. Springer, 845 So.2d 927, 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In determining whether a party is entitled to permanent alimony, the trial court must consider the duration of the parties’ marriage. See Martinez v. Martinez, 761 So.2d 433, 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), overruled in part on other grounds by Zold v. Zold, 911 So.2d 1222, 1234 (Fla.2005). Here, the parties were married for nineteen years. It is well settled, and the trial court properly found, that a nineteen-year marriage qualifies as a long-term marriage. See Cruz v. Cruz, 574 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (<HOLDING>); Kvittem v. Kvittem, 365 So.2d 791 (Fla. 4th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding husband could not have marriage annulled because wife was pregnant by him at time of marriage (B) holding that the law to be applied in determining the validity of  an outofstate marriage is the law of the state in which the marriage occurred (C) recognizing the common enterprise theory of marriage (D) recognizing that basis for deportation was aliens misrepresentation about his marriage not the validity of his marriage (E) recognizing seventeenyear marriage as long term
Output (English): holding husband could not have marriage annulled because wife was pregnant by him at time of marriage