jim that the only reason that this property was transferred into marital property or transferred to joint ownership and didn't otherwise become merrill property afterward so i was suppose it was because somehow or another heard a great deal of testimony related to how the financial arrangements between the two parties of the guards and the expenses on the house the insurance from all state and he others says i but i'm happy to talk about what summary judgment and then to talk about the rest of the evidence of this presented a trial that would have touch upon this issue for emotional reconsider was sought and and i think the other as it came in a trial actually been dictated the fact that there were inferences reasonable inferences a could be made from what was present at the time summary judgment that would have ended up with a judge who was open minded about this concluding that this was marital property and i i it is your duty in the first instance first of all she's a real estate broker and there's a lot of emphasis second be drawn from that including the fact that every time she set a realistic closing there were two lawyers involved and she had plenty of lawyers who she could consult with why are you thinking that that if you know that there's a concept of non marital in marital property why are you relying upon your husband to make that determination for you would never discuss it with him why aren't you getting independent advice i just think that the the whole concept of this occurred such a having a if if if we accept the concept that he was representing her at the time it's really not her obligation to seek out  it's going to make a difference and i think there's transaction and this is which is can be relied on and really if he is going to benefit from the transaction and he is her lawyer it's his affirmative obligation to explain to her up the ramifications of the action of the transaction so really i think what we need to discuss here is was he her lawyer well there were facts or are you know what i actually said was there enough evidence at the time to rule on a story a sub summary judgment would never rely on him for legal advice and didn't in this particular instance it was so i think that if one analyze the analyzes the situation surely from one end up going into the record prior to the court ruling on summary judgment that there were conflicting statements of fact there were inferences reasonable inferences that could be made issues were involved what happened with all of their you know that he lacked for example which is that and that had argued about and who pay the expenses whether there was maintenance attendant to  represent us on another transaction and it was going on at the same time so i think four and summary judgment the conclusion that judge kennedy is making is that jim talk susan into doing this and susan had no idea what the consequences and i think under the facts as known at the time motion for summary judgment was heard that isn't a conclusion that can be made clear or free from you read the transcript for her finding what she really did was she imposed a presumption because because she came to the conclusion that he was her lawyer and as a result convincing evidence shouldn't have been ruled upon in a summary judgment environment because he did present facts and reasonable inferences that should  they're there they tend to be very inappropriate because credibility is such a key issue you know in every case there's people who have my apia their side of the case and there's you know and and and greed and property that was funding susan's investment property she know she did it i'm saying what i'm saying to them saying two things that if one looks at the whole record number one when there was a motion to reconsider the end it should have been granted because the judge heard enough and number two i'm trying to bolster the fact as to why a summary judgment is in assuming that that happens in this case as remain and i would i would like to see the e mails but it never asked because i think you know one thing which i find extraordinary here and i would like a minute to defend the use of the e mails but  privacy the party sure screenname in a password and that meant that one of them had access to the only ones e mail without having to go through anything but clicking on the on the not have that those communications available to somebody else and i think that this is analogous to voice mails which happens been allowed to be used because if you envelope there's an expectation of privacy in that only the address you open it when you have an e mail an e mail list is is new when you have e mail and you have basically said to the other to some other person from there after which you can bet kind of bootstrap yourself into saying oh well the evidence the trial indicated this incident we should take a second look at that motion for summary judgment i don't think it would be appropriate to do that that would be our position on that you know how if if if your client is saying that he was my lawyer and you know i i wasn't told any of these things about the ramifications of the of the transfer from my name into the tennessee going to see and then you get this the husband saying i wasn't her lawyer she prepared i didn't have anything to do with representing her i did do the closing on the other property but the other two people  does how how does that summary judgment the judge conclude that there's no question material that is a matter of law that he is her attorney and that therefore he  because he was benefiting from the property there's this on to influence therefore i'm finding it's a matter of law that denies whether or not he was the attorney and he merely indicates that no one objected to his representation of all the parties in the strand stackyard these are your property the neither admit nor deny it but i but no one objected to it and the documents on their face clearly indicate that this transaction took place at the same exact time and the same date that he prepared the deed which transferred the property into the limited partnership between three partners testimony that one of those people involved prepared to know the testimony and the record is actual property from the three individuals is a deed that was prepared by mr curd sushi so he he in fact prepared the deed for the three individuals past when the property into the l l c so his representation of those three individuals is clear from the record but how does that translate into his representation of her on the record ok on the same exact date the same recording and by the way the same notary on these d he prepared the deed transferring the rasher property to himself and his wife so at the time there is no question in the record if he was that he was the attorney for not only the seller of the walk property but was not representing her i was not her attorney on the transfer of the rational property is the judge here making it credibility determination no i think the judge that's convened when he said it was not all of them prepared by mr period sushi for all sides of the transaction it leases a trial that she prepared to take and she said he said that she typed that that he did call her that i'm sorry that she did all of her typing all of his typing for him she didn't prepare she wasn't a lawyer she just did the typing for him because he was the lawyer and she helped him out during typing is that her preparing the deed clearly if an not judge but when you have documentary evidence that is conclusive on the issue of the attorney client relationship there's no need to go into any additional so here again because he prepared it's loose because he prepared the deed and singular transaction i think the end she said the judge said at the trial she is she she made it she said well he was the he was her lawyer on that day with regard to walk out so he's a lawyer and reassure and just because he just because  he says he was a doesn't make it so is inappropriate ruling on summary judgment to say well just because he said it's an app doesn't make it so it's not a question of whether makes it so it's a question of whether it's a material or post and the fact that this home was changed from one size to a larger size so we have up what how many years of this joint ownership at least alleged joint ownership think about ten years of and those all those things don't indicate that this was merely a property of being the david on the desk excepting insurance proceeds changing the actual size of the home doubling it those things  and then she there's this presumption that he's benefiting and i think you can fairly say however also say that he is isn't it a reasonable inference that he's also becoming obligated so can the judge now say there's no question the tiriel fact at this partial summary judgment is that she made these credibility determinations about telling the truth when she's not supposed to do that at that stage state respectfully i disagree because it's not an issue of credibility she looked at the the documents which existed at the time of the transaction what are you doing with these presumptions what about the presumption  case that says day it belies each other it's also these were her words too i think but black letter law it when there is property transferred during the marriage it is presumed that that transfer is a gift i agree things if you're talking about when she hated her summary judgment yes because if you read the judge she specifically indicates that she's already made a determination on the non marital nature of the real estate of the rational property so she doesn't go further into it because she already made the determination if you turn a client relationship existed and as a result of that a presumption of undue influence result and you think that's appropriate all the evidence i i think if you look at the class conversed as we pack case which is extremely analogous to this situation even in that case where the parties had a seventeen  do that because that attorney client relationship she didn't even represented in that transaction it was only an inference that she was involved in the transaction in fact her affidavit indicated that she had nothing to do with the estate plan that gave her that because the very deed was boring because an attorney can not benefit from a transaction with this i think that's that's the right so let's get back into these conclusive facts that he's a lawyer with us on the stand the day that this transaction occurred i think was temporary whatever the date is he also attended a closing where he represented the seller had a power of attorney the seller represented the he'd also on the same day same notary transferred the house the ranch or property for himself to his wife he should know better he has an obligation to advise his wife notwithstanding th wife he can't rely on the fact that it's merely his wife and he gets to do this willy nilly this is his wife he needs to tell her by the way if you transfer this to me this is presumed to be a transfer of your none marital property which you purchased three years prior to our marriage it's a marital property he doesn't get to do that ms clipart didn't get to do it and there was much less evidence in that case and the supreme court said no that transaction was a point transaction and she couldn't benefit from that relationship he would like you to believe that just because she was a real estate broker that there's an inference there about the inference that he was a mess from only a lawyer is there he should know better is there in france that he was taking an application or the property was transferred  so wife basically allowed the collateral of her property be property to be used so that they could borrow money and then create marital property pay off a mortgage piece of property that they owned that was clearly marital the property just kennedy did was she she specifically indicated that this was a case based upon all the facts and circumstances that indicated that there should be no proximate equal division of the what she does is she basically says i'm allocating this deck to miscarry sushi because i want to sever the economic ties between but severing the economic ties between them is not one of the three zero when you make a determination as to how you're going to dispose our effort if we divide marital property there is a litany of of things that you have to look to that is not one of them so when you divide marital property you also have to look at the marital underlying marital that the division is of the net maryland state not the gross marital estate so when you look at the net marital estate the division is such that miscarriage through she got twenty two percent of that merrill estate percy she got seventy eight percent of that we believe that was an abuse of discretion reciting a brief police case which is very closely analogous to this where there was not marital property that was used as collateral for the creation of merrill that it's undisputed that this debt is two hundred forty nine thousand dollars of that which was painstaking we traced by discourtesy she at the time of the trial with you know all of that that was used to acquire marital assets how is it appropriate for the judge that to say well we're going to assign all of that debt over to susan even though that is created the very mar a issue on the e mails judge i think what's what's important to understand here in this case is that mr curry sushi and filed a motion for access to this computer record that indicates how he actually acquired those those e mails we don't really know how he acquired those e mails it's not like the parents case the new york case that was cited by counsel where it indicates that it was in plain view he specifically says that he was just why indicates that he had back was forced to go out and buy a new computer and to secure his own internet service because she had confiscated so for him to come now and say what we know based on our limited technological abilities these days would be that he somehow found the new password we don't know how he got it i know i'm going to go forth and i don't know but i mean if that was the case then that would lead us to the parents account there's nothing in the record that indicates that at the time the two thousand and nine there's nothing in the record that indicates that the time of the filing of this case if they shared that he mail address i just say from my point of view  nothing i mean that's just absolutely absurd and and i think that the result was a matter of justice kennedy which judge kennedy which she says in her judgment being  she laid out the fish store effect as in five of three including the amount of non marital property that's awarded to each party susan's amero property at this point besley seated james and when he talks about the debt i think s it he gets the debt and you know i think that's not the way we do things in the end the marital property was divided something less than fifty fifty of the seventy eight twenty two that mister tabor calls him because one of the