In the case of a long-term marriage lasting at least seventeen years, the courts recognize a rebuttable presumption in favor of awarding permanent alimony. Schroll v. Schroll , 227 So. 3d 232, 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ; Gotro v. Gotro , 218 So. 3d 494, 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ; Keyser v. Keyser , 204 So. 3d 159, 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) ; Nolan v. Nolan , 188 So. 3d 977, 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). "A trial court can overcome [the presumption] by making detailed findings of fact regarding a spouse's need and the other spouse's ability to pay, as well as by considering all the relevant statutory factors listed in section 61.08(2)."

We conclude it was not error for the trial court to consider the former wife's allegedly supportive relationship because section 61.08(2)(j), Florida Statutes (2015), permits the trial court to consider "[a]ny other factor necessary to do equity and justice between the parties" when determining a proper award of alimony, and that consideration is dependent upon the circumstances of each particular case. See generally Keyser v. Keyser, 204 So. 3d 159, 161-62 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (considering evidence regarding alleged supportive relationship during appeal of final judgment of dissolution). However, the trial court was required to make findings regarding the factors outlined in section 61.08(2) before concluding that the former wife was not entitled to alimony.

We conclude it was not error for the trial court to consider the former wife's allegedly supportive relationship because section 61.08(2)(j), Florida Statutes (2015), permits the trial court to consider "[a]ny other factor necessary to do equity and justice between the parties" when determining a proper award of alimony, and that consideration is dependent upon the circumstances of each particular case. See generally Keyser v. Keyser, 204 So.3d 159, 161–62 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (considering evidence regarding alleged supportive relationship during appeal of final judgment of dissolution). However, the trial court was required to make findings regarding the factors outlined in section 61.08(2) before concluding that the former wife was not entitled to alimony.

Even though the court ultimately decided that an alimony award was inappropriate, the mandatory statutory language in section 61.08(2) required the court to make factual findings regarding the threshold inquiry of whether either party had the need and ability to pay. And because such factual findings are statutorily required, the trial court shall make them on remand. See Keyser v. Keyser, 204 So. 3d 159, 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reversing portion of final judgment that denied a request for alimony in part because there was "no reference to the preliminary inquiry mandated by the initial provisions of section 61.08(2)" regarding need and ability to pay). Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand for further proceedings in connection with the equitable distribution and alimony determinations consistent with this opinion.

In the case of a long-term marriage lasting at least seventeen years, the courts recognize a rebuttable presumption in favor of awarding permanent alimony. Schroll v. Schroll , 227 So. 3d 232, 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ; Gotro v. Gotro , 218 So. 3d 494, 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ; Keyser v. Keyser , 204 So. 3d 159, 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) ; Nolan v. Nolan , 188 So. 3d 977, 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). "It is an abuse of discretion to not award permanent periodic alimony in a long-term marriage unless the presumption favoring such an award is overcome by competent, substantial evidence."

This argument is preserved for appeal as Florida Rule of Family Law Procedure 12.530(e) provides that arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence in a nonjury trial may be raised on appeal without first filing a motion for rehearing. See alsoKeyser v. Keyser , 204 So. 3d 159, 160 n.2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (treating wife's challenge to the trial court's decision to deny alimony as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, which could be raised on appeal under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(e) regardless of whether a motion for rehearing had been filed below).In Taylor v. Taylor , 177 So. 3d 1000, 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), the Second District summarized the trial court's decision to award alimony as a four-step process in which it had to determine: (1) the party's need for support, (2) the other party's ability to pay, (3) the types of alimony appropriate in the case, and (4) the amount of alimony to award.

A long-term marriage carries a rebuttable presumption favoring an award of permanent alimony. See Keyser v. Keyser , 204 So. 3d 159, 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). The trial court did not address the rebuttable presumption of permanent alimony nor did it explain how or why the presumption had been overcome.