NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

DIANA AYRA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D13-262 ) OSVALDO AYRA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed October 1, 2014. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Tracy Sheehan, Judge. Lorena L. Kiely, Tampa, for Appellant. Allison M. Perry of Florida Appeals & Mediations, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

KELLY, Judge.

Diana Ayra (the Former Wife) challenges the amended final jud gment that dissolved her marriage to Osvaldo Ayra (the Former Husband). O n appeal, she argues that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) failing to aw ard her nominal permanent alimony; (2) failing to order the Former Husband to maintain me dical and dental insurance for the minor child; (3) failing to allocate the chil d's uncovered medical- 2 - expenses; and (4) failing to require the Former Husband to pay her attorney's fees and costs. We find merit only in the Former Wife's contentions reg arding alimony and allocation of the child's uncovered medical expenses and theref ore reverse. In all other respects, we affirm the amended final judgment without discussi on. The parties' marriage lasted twenty years. This is a long-te rm marriage. See § 61.08(4), Fla. Stat. (2010) (defining long-term marriage as "having a duration of seventeen years or greater"); see also Grill v. Grill, 123 So. 3d 683, 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (same). In the context of a long-term marriage, there is an initial presumption in favor of permanent periodic alimony. Schlagel v. Schlagel, 973 So. 2d 672, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). In determining alimony, "[t]he primary factors for the trial court to consider are the needs of one spouse and th e ability of the other spouse to pay." Id. (citing Hann v. Hann, 629 So. 2d 918, 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)). In determini ng need, the trial court is obligated to consider the factors in section 61.08(2). A tr ial court's decision on whether permanent, periodic alimony is appropriate is subject t o an abuse of discretion standard of review. Murray v. Murray, 598 So. 2d 310, 312 (Fla . 2d DCA 1992). In considering the Former Wife's need for alimony, the trial court stated, in part, that the Former Wife had the potential to earn an additio nal $5000 per month as a police officer. However, that finding is not supported by the record. The testimony at the final hearing did not show that this was a viable option fo r the Former Wife. Further, the Former Wife's testimony established that there is a likelih ood her medical and housing expenses will increase a fter the marriage is dissolved. Accordingly, it was error

for the trial court to conclude that the Former Wife did not ha ve the need for any alimony.- 3 - The long-term duration of the parties' marriage, coupled with the potential

future needs of the Former Wife in the form of rent and medical expenses warrant at least a nominal amount of permanent alimony. See Nourse v. Nou rse, 948 So. 2d 903, 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (concluding "that the historic incomes o f the parties, the length of the marriage, and the wife's potential future needs require an award of at least a nominal amount of permanent alimony"). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to award at least a nominal amount of alimony per y ear in order to retain jurisdiction to reconsider alimony in the future.

As for the child's uncovered medical expenses, the Former Wif e argues, and the Former Husband concedes, that the trial court erred bec ause it failed to address this item in the amended final judgment. On remand, th e trial court must allocate these expenses in accordance with the parties' respect ive shares of the child support obligation. See Zinovoy v. Zinovoy, 50 So. 3d 763, 764 -65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding that any uncovered medical expenses should be allocate d in the same percentage as the child support allocation unless the final jud gment contains a logical rationale to the contrary). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

WALLACE and KHOUZA M, JJ., Concur.