opportunity to reopen the evidence to determine the value of the pension and the terminating what distribution of property i should have been in this case  your mortgage wife so that has been i guess all the scrooge i mean it seems sort of a rough business for some sort of a rough equity without taking into account says he did basically say put me under what your honor said and basically just gave him one hundred percent of marital property and really to be honest with you when you look at his justification it was basically a couple sentences it  was referring to as having been offset by the thirty five thousand dollars in debt that mr lynch assumed the pension plan defined benefit pension plan is what it was referred to in her graph twelve the monthly twenty one hundred thirty three dollars benefit that mr lynch receives so that is what is referred to in twelve i think that's what is being asked to be reviewed on appeal as opposed to right ok additional matter your honor the court did make about waste in the pension there was not an actuarial evaluation of dealing with life expectancies and such however this pension had been in pay status since april first two thousand and ten the monthly benefit which is known to age of the participants was not the reduction for the seventy five percent joint and survivor annuity was known as the mar when applied to the month in benefits half of the marital portion out of the marital portion using a count was new to the formula to the five seventy five ninety one per month that is not failing to evaluate the pension i would refer unanimous court that when a pension is a status its value is no its value is the amount of the month event on and the court of this court reversed the trial court in that case asked to the reserve fifty percent share of the marital woes she'd get which would lead one to two clues that the amount of the person she would receive would be zero i think what she got in this case was off once during the marriage with marital funds to the tune of a forty eight thousand dollars mortgage and had been paid back down on a second mortgage taken out two years later in an amount of approximately seventeen thousand that was worth to face you came up with the sixty five thousand dollars figure that's that's fairly well accepted in those cases what the principal reduction on the non marital residence was also mr lynch took an exorbitant amount of that in this case thirty six thousand dollars worth of debt the financial affairs affidavits that were submitted to go to pay c in this case showed that the minimum monthly payments on the day i was eleven hundred seventy five dollars a month  and i think also your honor there are some tension between whether a defined benefit pension in pay status is conceptualized as income or assets i understand  law routinely has considered a defined benefit pension and said even in pay status but i don't think the income and cash flow moves to the divorcing spouse can be it can be ignored section five a three d tells the the trial court to consider the economic circumstances and liabilities and income of the parties once this property distribution takes effect well if you had taken away five hundred seventy five dollars a month from patterson and  after divorce the distant type of distribution had her she got fifty percent of the marital portion and what it put her in a far superior position to factor even though what did you argue took up things your honor i argued that betty should be able to keep this entire defined contribution plan but what did you argue about the house as far as the house the the for money back and for i'm sorry your honor i your position what i mean whether it's labor or blister not the concept would and in addition there was a benefit to him to get to live and for them to enjoy that property for twenty years wasn't twenty years twenty years  from that which was already there and which was used for marital expenses marital purposes undisputedly your honor i argued that that his lunch was leaving the marriage with forty two thousand dollar a s i argued that the principle paid down was clearly defined by so i stipulated fast i don't think the clear and convincing evidence it is an issue and we have a stipulation saying exactly what was paid down in the in the mortgage and i argued in light of the death that was being a song by patrick and in light of the fact that he had basically no house or comparable assets to the non marital property that you're in the saving that he should get some greater share of his defined benefit pension than the fifty percent and i think octuplets i mean reject the hypothetical they've married and he's got a ten thousand dollars credit card hell with it if he gets to enjoy a new truck during the marriage but he only got to buy that new truck because that original mortgage and you won't get anything of ours here i guess and part that was some theory but again if you took out the contribution make very convincing evidence the net value of that house was still forty two thousand dollars there was and it may seem like dollar assets at the time of the marriage would that make a difference to you out of the house now given the best explanation i can from the facts i have the stipulation in the amount the value of the property at the time of divorce was seventy five thousand dollars and forty eight thousand was paid down in principal mortgage over the first fifteen years of that marriage on this wasn't you know sixty ok twenty to twenty five thousand dollars in equity of time in the marriage i think it will suggest that at most and i wish i could give you precise evidence i can't as to what it was worth at the time of the marriage but dollars house he was leaving the earth with here patrick had to go find some place to rent the financial affairs affidavit showed is going to cost six hundred dollars a month which is more than the mortgage payment that karen has been left with on her house patrick had a part of a payoff been unfair to patrick had carried out fifty percent of the portion of the assets of the left him in a terrible cashflow situation as far as his housing credit card and vehicle debt in relation to his expenses he's in a terrible situation position of the trial court and i think that's the standard here we all could have done something different i didn't know what the judge was going to do with with what number between i hope it wasn't fifty percent i i except it her living expenses will continue to contribute toward the equity that she's already built up in the last year so it's not exactly a war if not i believe she's leaving with an asset there's the likelihood that oh yes it was benefiting during the course of the marriage but the possibility back and i understand that i think the one thing is when you look at the number that sixty six thousand dollars that