characterization of property parties for marriage for proximity twenty five years and they're all the issue really relates to the application of the five zero three standards and eventually t by property five zero three maintenance five zero four characterization of the property but this really needs to be looked at in the totality of the search of the property issues parents have been able to acquire certain assets and income and a majority of the marital assets or majority of the assets that were divided are really assets that were dissolutions over the last thirty years that i've been practicing in everybody a spouse is the fact that we are not a community property state however when you get to the trial court the starting point almost is always an equal division and there's still lots of reasons why that would be true if you have a serious home spouse things are getting a little bit more complicated in today's day and age as you there is really very few what would be considered traditional marital assets in other words assets that were fired by the two individuals now without any outside help ok i various through their own terminations in these matters and that tends to be an abuse of discretion or manifest weight in terms of the allocation is going to be abuse of discretion of no reasonable individual and i would suggest that whether you call it fifty fifty forty five fifty five if you talk i'm not sure who would be a reasonable person as yet but if you talk about a reasonable person i don't think anyone would think that a division of assets question but i don't leave it is a life time stream of income but i believe it tended to find the farm industry yet cultural commodity prices i think the three years of representative income not part of the record so i have nothing nor does this court have anything to do to be able to ascertain whether that maintenance of mt is necessary or not necessary in terms of mr  things daily living expenses or the feeling of living expenses of misses he will say but that's that's where we're at say looking at the forest versus the trees if we were talking about just  analysis those are in fact transfused into marital fines the question is was that transfusion was that yes because that's what we're talking about when i receive something i put a spouse's name on it i'm getting my  would think we have this mindset that yes the fifty percent and i do not believe that it is fifty percent you know the  certainly i think doing a few of these cases i'm much more careful about counseling or you are going there when she put her husband's name on the account or the and on that that she intended to convey something to fifty percent because it's common ownership because it's right of survivorship there is nothing with when we go to divide up marital property there's nothing in the statute there's nothing in five all three the says it's an equal division if talks about the contributions of each part and so i am suggesting that that the vision when you go to make that division you look at the contribution assuming it's a gift to the marital state which is what i that is so heavily yes where there was where they used the money like piggy bank in other words here's this inherited money we're just using it for everything that we live by you know i stop working whatever the case may be these people are very simple lifestyle i mean they have a nice home that was built early on for you with marriage mr mrs eagleton but you know other than that and what i'm going to say now swimming upstream the general the general proposition from this court is if a trial court says that it's considered the factors set forth  having the right length but when you have these types of cases there are some types of cases that really do require greater analysis for this court to be able to review in for an understanding of inherited income but my client sees marriage obligations out there economic circumstances of each spouse you know my guess is the economic circumstances is consistent with that's that wasn't an issue future income future income if you derive from their own services approximately the same tax consequences really are not an issue so the real issue here is the c impossible and i would hope that there would be just the deferral that the judge has some inkling and knew what he was story because that really deprives us of the ability to be able to challenge the court's decision we don't know the needs of the party you know the income of the pot the same but for the monies that are receiving from the inheritance that's that's the that's the bottom line is everything goes back to what's being received and going to the argument at least in my view that a reasonable person would not have arrived at this solution this is something that is outside of the bounds yes that the statement of this hold the vision of the property is appropriate it certainly comes into play that in fact no reasonable person would believe the division that is substantially decided that the point with the property division i don't know how the court i don't have anything in front of it to me nor do you have anything in front of you that allows anybody to consider what that m case to just ignore or forgo the opportunity to explain to the trial court what she intended to do when she made those transfers the deed but basically she has foregone the opportunity to tell the court her giving an explanation as to why she might done them other than to make guest and and take into account but i think the court can always order of things pay of oh yes it's or income and i would i would also point out that esther one hundred nineteen view of the fact that a lot of this money was inherited money that the course decision to give her a little more might not have been a problem worse than an abuse of discretion but i certainly think so three days before and that comes from