issue that we are dealing with here the trial in the case was it minutely unconventional there was no testimony by anyone and i know that that is a big issue in this case right now i'm on a date of trial of the parties agree that each of the individual parties exhibits would be admitted without objection and each side argue legal their legal position to the work and i think this is there's mention of stipulations and a lot of these sort of stipulations were actually in the context of a legal argument during that during those proceedings there was really no need for testimony in this case because there was no there were no fact disputes there were there were no factual disputes because we agreed we stipulated that mr preston had been terminated from his position at state on prior to his wife filing for a just solution marriage we agreed that the financial affidavit submitted by the parties at trial accurately reflected their individual financial position week now it's just that the parties financial position was pretty scary us at the maryland state was insolvent mr can see this in the judge's docket entries that the primary point of point of contention with the payment of that and in particular it was the payment on the second mortgage which not coincidentally was six hundred twenty dollars which states at this and his order the very first paragraph of the trial court's order states the linchpin event and the financial crisis which patients the courts consideration of the disputed issues in this case was respondents terminations of employment at state farm it's clear the very first paragraph the judge states that was the issue before the court was was the respondent terminated was it his fault and if it was his fault the judge goes on and says then i should imputing come to him and he should be obliged to pay certain tatts and or maintenance it's clear from that first paragraph that whether or not mr gamble that that would also be considered marital misconduct i would i would think and anything that is morally objectionable would be considered misconduct have been against the marital estate now they think there may be dissipation claims that someone could come over whether in those contacts and even in the context of an affair if somebody uses marital resources to engage him and things that are not helpful to the maryland state but i would suggest that misconduct can't be used to determine whether a maintenance award is appropriate the statu states i mean it doesn't limit that to extramarital affairs says marital misconduct and mr griffin was definitely faulted i mean there's there's a moral judgment in this order that it was his fault that he was fired and that predated the dissolution it's his fault he was fired it did cause financial distress and the marital situation it did cause some  still reversed the trial court relying on the back channel basis as it was stated in the trial court's order and that's what we're asking for it to do here we're asking the court to look at the order which was very specific which cases  one exhibit trial exhibit in particular should be considered and that would be mrs griffith financial affidavit which was submitted by the petitioner in the trial court without objection and the reason  affidavit that was submitted at trial just that was signed in sworn to just eight days before trial is shows that the income of the petitioner was actually exceeded the respondents income in time by a considerable amount  the other cases real light upon by the appellate to support the contention regarding the record are just in school because those are cases where there was testimony that was unavailable to the reviewing court neither party testified in this case and that the trial exhibits were were basically what was submitted for consideration and counsel in regards to the trial exhibits is there anything in the record that indicates that the the parties agreed that they should be admitted in terms of which  within the record doesn't necessarily mean it's an admitted example of the exhibits that we're focusing on here today want the respondents and calm is in the the judge's order to trainer found specifically that the respondent made forty nine thousand dollars a year when he worked at state farm so he imputed forty nine thousand dollars to him so we know from the trial court's order at trial he was making less and the petitioner is the one that submitted her own financial affidavit and i would suggest that wasn't i'm telling you if we didn't object to it we don't have any objection to this court considering that that was not our exhibit that was the petitioners exhibit i think those are the two most important pieces of evidence in the record right now and there in the record the problem with order is in the record the petitioner's financial affidavit is in the record and they suggest a discrepancy a significant discrepancy in income here the petitioner was making twenty thousand dollars a year more than the respondent at the time of trial without the imputation of being now with you look there's very early cory booker's presence it the the fact that we can see continue to have to deal with the false perception that there was testimony presented in this case was the original brief that suggested there was testimony the amended brief now it's talks about stipulations but again it it references testimony thousand and twelve income changing well she submitted a financial affidavit which was signed eight days before trial that showed her income and to suggest in a brief that there was testimony that her income changed i think is disingenuous and just all that's not what happened and yes there is a record of what her income is but there's no record of her testimony because it didn't happen the and i was working on that and i think i was entitled to rely on petitioners own exhibit and own statement as to what her income was but we get the a probably is brave and now she's challenging her own exhibit there's also challenges to how much the respondents income was a state farm but we have the district court's order that says he found specifically their spawn it was making forty nine thousand dollars  the suggestion that he was making a lot more has been decided it's in the district court's order under milne as you can consider that fact in this appeal  and then even though we have we have any knowledge meant by the a probably that there was no testimony she goes on to talk about the demeanor of the parties and credibility determinations there couldn't have been credibility determinations there was no testimony in fact at some one point everybody talks about process stipulations i have no idea what that means i have no idea what that is i don't know what she's talking about district we didn't dispute the exhibits that were in the record it wasn't until we got the a police theory and we noticed oh my my oh my goodness where did this come from you know weird w are not properly before the court the alleged dispute as to the petitioners income she submitted the financial affidavit the alleged dispute about the respondents income that's in the trial court's order and the and those are the  but he based that ability to pay on the imputation of income for state farm which he lost when he was terminated it's clear and this case that the felt that mr griffin should be held morally responsible for the misconduct of him being terminated from his state farm employment and that was proper  roberts order says there was testimony it was not testimony in the traditional sense but it was testimony by virtue of stipulation and it was very organized in terms of how we did it if called to testify but to petition or say then she could get up and say this is what the cross would look by if called to testify and so that's how we went back and forth presenting to the court in a very structured manner it is not to say that it was one hundred percent agreed upon but rather this is what each party would say and so when i made references about there being a transcript or a need for still needed to give this appellate court what it was we told the judge the evidence was going to be because both of us and there's no way that that she can say that that's not what we did we did it by stipulation if called to testify this is what the testimony would be and then we were able was it done she says it's been an argument form i don't necessarily agree that it was done in an argument form it may have been one i honestly don't recall if it was one continuous but i know that we took the effort to say this is what it says we referenced exhibits we reference what our clients would say about those exhibits and the fact that it was done in that manner makes it all that much easier to have done a bystander's report she complains but ok one thing he doesn't have a reporting system i have to do is ask for a court order number one number two a bystander support in this particular case would have been quite easy to accomplish and so i do think that these are things that i do i think that there are disagreements we have and her coming back and forth and saying well look at judge reinert order on the face of this order just rely on this but don't pay attention to the fact that he's saying there was testimony additionally i submit that you various have the docket entry to you you have how many times we came to court when we came to the court and if you look at that you will know that mr griffin represented himself for a significant portion of this case he came he represented himself why is that significant that is significant because again judge crying and have the opportunity to see him to listen to him to talk to him was that all  necessarily in that one instance no it was not but judge reiner didn't have the opportunity to look to talk to directly probably even more so than most trial judges get in terms of not having someone kind of leading the testimony but observing them so i do think the record is significant i do believe that there was testimony that was testimony by stipulation but nonetheless it was testimony we did say to the judge  testify my client would say about this exhibit so for example and i think there are numerous exhibits that we could question about she points to a w two from the appellant and says this is what is turning that was was something that we talked about we did my client threw me by saying all the testified this is my friends have to date she would testify this is what the current situation is with her employment and it is significant i think those are the sorts of things and then if we have a disagreement that's something the judge reinard could have settled for us instead of us sitting here today saying well what did he seem to be saying upon his affidavit was going to be good or which required the judge to consider numerous things with regard to these exhibits and these where we are after if we are going to say ok we're fine let's forget about the fact that we by stipulation presented testimony and again i understand that that is somewhat unusual we were pressed for time we have been working on some some other issues so that is what we elected to do but that doesn't restrict us from saying all there was no testimony at all oh there was no explanation about these exhibits there was nothing presented with regard we just gave the order these exhibits and argued that's not what happened that's not what happened and i think that we needed either a bystander report or some type of stipulation with regard to what we said the testimony would have been at the parties have been present and again i do think the court was in a position to observe the parties on a date and not a day to day basis but when we appear in court and i would submit consider marital misconduct and i submit to you that if you did not i argue it was my position that by its own this time that he lost his job yes but that is not an improper consideration of misconduct i understand the statu support shall not consider misconduct during the marriage however before an end in prior cases has considered whether or not conduct has led to you losing your job which off lose your job and then say gosh i can't pay child support that's that's where a lot of our in imputing of income cases come from but that's not to say that the judge could not imputed income in this particular case and i completely disagree the judge trying to only consider that factor in fact if you are considering this case in its totality with the limited record you have before you is his ruling is very sustained by the record you have i what you don't count was the talk about the buy the idea that he was going to file bankruptcy but you don't know if it is necessarily a discussion of the list of debts but what that judge knew was that  minor children in the home that's one of the factors number one of the factors is is that the future income of both parties the custodial provision for the parties all that was considered by the court why is that significant because we do have an exhibit two which talks about both the first and second mortgages of the house in the judge minors order that first and second mortgage were placed on the petitioner shoulders so counsel again we don't necessarily have the record but if we did in terms of what we stipulated we would have stipulated they were under water that more money was owed them an outstanding work so it's not as if my flying got something good she got a liability head are additional stipulated testimony regarding taking out of that second mortgage who took out that second mortgage how that second mortgage was accumulated where the money went none of that you have before however it is not our petitioner's exhibit two talks about both the first and second mortgage it's not mere coincidence that the second mortgage is six hundred nineteen dollars and one since a month and that mr griffin maintenance was six hundred twenty dollars and judge primary given him an obligation to assist in paying the liability you would now as we stipulated in the stipulated testimony most certainly have filed bankruptcy leaving my client and the minor children of the party it's sitting there kind of holding the bag so in terms of judge brian are not only considering everything in this case  judge trainer's thought process was very thorough it is certainly when we talk about the standard of review certainly nothing that you can call into question without a complete record number one and number two without understanding to awarding the home or the right to live there into the party having a study of the minor children that is one of the factors whether it's stated in his order or not certainly one of the things i think he was looking for and how did he accomplish that if you gave him that that that was go bankrupt and then everybody would be out on the street again you cannot discharge maintenance obligation invent privacy so how do you get someone to pay you that without saying pay this debt i think it is a very well thought out opinion i think it is an opinion that is sustained by what evidence you have before you and certainly is something where he took into account the minor children who had custody of the minor children in both parties and the future income of both parties and so it's not just did he behave badly and lose his job if he behaved badly and take out a second mortgage which resulted in six hundred thousand dollars being added to american presidents obligation it is a situation where he was trying and i believe successfully and equitably distributed these obligations in a method that would protect the children and protect protect mr griffin in this particular case out if it handles issues that you are unaware of because we don't have a complete record issues of bankruptcy the issue of who took out the second mortgage issues of what were the relative incomes of both parties what did mrs griffin say through me saying this is what she would have testified to i agree she didn't take the stand but there was an opportunity i think for the court to consider that that is how we made the presentation of evidence to say to suggest that we just handed the judge the financial documents and said that's it this is ridiculous joe biden are going to have want to have even if he could have made a decision if that is what the representation is that we just gave him the documents and said nothing is in dispute we're just going to argue because we did have to present some testimony so to support that to explain it to talk about what these exhibits were this wasn't just a situation where these were handed over and everybody said ok look i'm trying to figure this out because there was more to the case and now but just in closing i would submit that that is exactly what appellant is asking you to do to protect and that all not met exhibits there and you you've got them in the record but take those into say figured out figured out and i was driving down here trying to think of what is the analogy and the only analogy i can come up with is really it's a bit like hieroglyphics a visually so you know people who investigated read them and read them came up and said this is what the hieroglyphics say but no one knows because we don't have any objections who are capable of reading quick fix we went back and tried to figure out we missed nuances we missed names that maybe maybe we have lately missed understood but your difference for trying to say and we're doing our best guesstimate and i submit that this court should not be doing an estimate when looking at these exhibits and i submit that this court should not be calling into question judge prine or its very reasonable order when you look at the totality of everything that was presented to them so th i'm glad mr overbridge the bankruptcy because i agree one hundred percent with her that is why george trainer did what he made the maintenance exactly well to the second mortgage so that my client could not see the benefit of that role bankruptcy that's exactly why i did it i agree one hundred percent that's what happened that's wrong principles of comity would made in the record and i honestly it's clear that's what he dead i agree with and so far she's raised at i'm going to follow up on it if you look if you read his opinion and you see six twenty six twenty for the second mortgage i know that's why he did it that was an issue that we had argued but he didn't state that it's not like what he stated in the first paragraph or he said it's your fault you guys are in this position so you're going to have to pay maintenance you're going to have to pay the the debt other than the mortgage thank you and i know we don't disagree with the facts and this case i can't think of a single fact other than this that the representation in the brief petitioners is a property a property issue the americans state was insolvent judge reynard ignored the the fact that it was a property issue and an attempt to stay in that house for the white and the children but he ignored the responded it's right to have some income to survive off of and doing so and i now as i agree one hundred percent with ms oprah's argument that this was to avoid the bankruptcy laws i am not just puting that at all that is exactly why just yes and i'm glad she raised that point and i didn't raise the cup the issues and my plate because again i was trying to go off the record that we have if you look at the judge's order he was talking about misconduct and his order he was talking about imputing income i want to talk about imputing income because it's interesting the judge never went into the  specific requirements for imputing and you have to find that someone was trying to avoid a support obligation when he was terminated the dissolution petition had never been filed there was no finding and that required there was no