Syed Imran Ali v. Saba Shoukat

FIFTH D ISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
S TATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2025-1410
LT Case No. 42-2023-DR-1624
_____________________________
S YED I MRAN A LI ,
Appellant,
v.
SABA SHOUKAT ,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County.
Jennifer Bass, Judge.
John N. Bogdanoff, of The Carlyle Appellate Law Firm, Orlando,
for Appellant.
No Appearance for Appellee.
October 16, 2026
S OUD, J.
Appellant Syed Ali appeals the final judgment of dissolution
of marriage that ended his 249-day marriage to Appellee Saba
Shoukat.1 He challenges the trial court’s distribution of property,
the provision of bridge-the-gap alimony to his former wife, and the
1 	Shoukat has neither made an appearance 	nor filed an
answer brief in this case.

2
award to Shoukat of attorney fees. We have jurisdiction. See Art.
V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We reverse
the trial court’s award of bridge-the-gap alimony. We affirm in all
other respects without further comment.
Following trial, the parties’ short-term marriage involving no
children was dissolved. Pertinent here, in the final judgment, the
trial court ordered Ali to pay $2,675.87 per month to Shoukat as
bridge-the-gap alimony to assist her with “legitimate identifiable
short[-]term 	needs 	. 	. 	. 	to 	bridge 	the 	gap 	to 	self-support.”
Recognizing that Shoukat “did not argue or introduce evidence as
to a time period necessary to bridge the gap to self-support other
than in her request for lump sum alimony as she will have no way
to support herself for the next ‘several months,’” the trial court
turned to case law “[f]or guidance.” Relying at least in part on
Murray v. Murray, 374 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), a case
involving 	an 	approximately 	seven-month 	marriage 	where 	the
Fourth District reduced a four-year alimony award to six months,
the trial court awarded Shoukat bridge-the-gap alimony for a
period of nine months, roughly the same timeframe as the length
of her marriage to Ali.
The trial court’s award of bridge-the-gap alimony is reviewed
for abuse of discretion. See Saario v. Tiller, 333 So. 3d 315, 320
(Fla. 5th DCA 2022).
“The party seeking . . . alimony has the burden of proving his
or her need . . . and the other party’s ability to pay . . . .” §
61.08(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2024). If the trial court finds both need and
ability to pay exist, it must then consider the factors set forth in
section 	61.08(2) 	to 	decide 	the 	type 	and 	amount 	of 	alimony
appropriately awarded. See Saario, 333 So. 3d at 320.
Relevant to this case, section 61.08(6) provides for bridge-the-
gap alimony “to provide support to a party in making the transition
from being married to being single.” This type of alimony, which
may not be awarded for more than two years, is non-modifiable
and is designed to “assist[] a party with legitimate identifiable
short-term needs.” Id. (emphasis added).
Here, the trial court determined Shoukat failed to present
evidence as to the amount of time she would need bridge-the-gap

3
alimony to assist with identifiable needs “other than in her request
for lump sum alimony as she will have no way to support herself
for the next ‘several months.’” Faced with this dearth of evidence,
the trial judge turned to case law.
But as the text of the alimony statute makes clear, when
seeking bridge-the-gap alimony, a requesting party must identify
“legitimate identifiable short-term needs” with which assistance is
needed to smooth the transition “from being married to being
single.” Id. Inherent within this statute is the requirement that
Shoukat offer proof as to the legitimate identifiable short-term
needs she has, including the time such short-term needs will exist
for which the bridge-the-gap alimony is needed. This is a factually
based inquiry, and the trial court’s determination is to be founded
upon 	the 	evidence 	before 	it. 	See 	Murray, 	374 	So. 	2d 	at 	624
(reducing rehabilitative alimony award because “there [was no]
evidence that she would require four years to regain her ability for
self-support”).2
Shoukat’s 	testimony 	that 	she 	needs 	assistance 	for 	a 	few
months is insufficient to adequately inform the trial court as to the
proper amount of time to provide bridge-the-gap alimony. And
while case law in Florida certainly has its place, precedent cannot
substitute for that which only admitted evidence can provide.
Thus, the trial court’s reliance on Murray in providing bridge-the-
gap alimony here is misplaced.
Accordingly, we R EVERSE in part and A FFIRM in part. We
reverse the trial court’s award of bridge-the-gap alimony and
remand with instructions to vacate the award. We affirm in all
other respects.
It is so ordered.
2 We note that Murray does not elaborate on the factual basis
in the record before it that supported its determination that six
months was an appropriate amount of time to award alimony in
that case. See Murray, 374 So. 2d at 623–24.

4
B OATWRIGHT and KILBANE , JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not 	final 	until 	disposition 	of 	any 	timely 	and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________