Therefore, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in not adhering to the presumption of retroactivity in terminating Former Wife’s alimony obligation. See Nuttle, 257 So. 3d at 1086 (trial court abused its discretion by not making alimony modification retroactive to the date of filing of the original modification action because record did not support rejection of payor spouse’s request for retroactive application of the alimony modification); Dennis v. Dennis, 223 So. 3d 480, 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (trial court abused its discretion by failing to make alimony termination retroactive to date former wife’s alimony need ceased, where no reason for denying former husband’s request for retroactive application of the termination was provided in the record); cf. Gurdian v. Gurdian, 198 So. 3d 65, 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (trial court abused its discretion in making modification of support obligations retroactive where proof presented in support of modification demonstrated that payor’s income was sufficient to meet support obligations during the pendency of the modification petition, but not as of the date of the modification judgment).