order to cover the daughter's expenses such as softball and basketball and things without contribution from mr jerry her home was much smaller wealth but she was single and living alone i mean are you saying that she should actually she budgeted additional monies for travel over the years some other of her expenses she didn't creased as well some she was able to  income and term reduction of expenses which you've just been talking about and for these reasons your maintenance work must be reduced to fairly reflect these changes it would not be fair to reduce your award to amount calculated to merely cover her the same applying that to the new income we should look at the local tax rate and then estimate based on the federal food so security and medicare are the same on income regardless of he she doesn't need the maximum it's it would be all relevant to your patient but what are they had they done in concert in these four hundred twenty seven thousand dollars per year leading up to the divorce and that was really the basis that they work that they were differential so from her employment without any actual overtime or education classes and she had more education classes because she was new to nursing at the time with the long lines of fifty thousand dollars a year fighting by the trial court is to this is including substantially more so when he ordered the forty seven hundred dollars a month he had stated that mr jerry's income was two hundred fifty thousand dollars per year when he upped it by the three hundred dollars and also  as you indicated justice it's not your job to really weigh the evidence that we hit and there is sufficient evidence to support this ruling this court sent the case back to the trial judge to compute a reasonable to accomplish it in full so if it looks like certainly the record reflects that there is now a great dispiriting income between the parties and what in the benchmarking is in this is guided by previous rulings trial for previous rulings of this court going back to two thousand and nine estimated ninety seven dollars a month that they are represented the standard of choice because she was in a position of covering the expenses for more good they were doing better and so she had to significantly reduce her lifestyle take a smaller apartment  least twenty thousand over actual expenses a reasonable amount is that what did the trial court and i'm how does that sentence reflect do and does that five thousand dollars  expenses that we're talking about the a three hundred a month and as i look to get it to a lot of neighbors her around without the children is actually a little less it's about eighty thousand dollars or so ninety six thousand a year but the trial for whom the said well she never told me what that a lot he found that she overstated her housing expenses because the principal interest fixes in insurance per exhibit she was eight hundred a month but she claimed another  back in twenty nine when more proof so to my question is did he does the fast pass it for a month give her a net gain of twenty thousand over her actual to continuing now is the union the multiple changes of circumstance for where one is or where wed now with respect to his credibility the issue was they put in first of all the documentation and then he did a summary exhibit basically trying to show what he thought happened to it and the  of the year range up to seventy eight thousand which could are up to ninety six thousand elsewhere if she chooses to live in ohio all of these things and all the maintenance things the taxes those are