said that that phrase has been convicted or in a civil union eg legally entered into defines a class of people to whom it applies it applies to anyone who was convicted of an offense and actually at any point in time at all the same convictions of past convictions not a relationship between two people it's what license and correct it's always nice said yes but the language is the same about has been convicted what does that mean and that's of course a dead anyone who's been convicted you prospect of will be deemed prospect of only for a substantive offense creating a civil union defining race of parties giving them the rights of spouses rights to marital property not merely property contribution all those things is  rule of law that you're looking for it shall we it's the date the and then we are disregarding another part of the enacted is there not also an obligation that we have to not interpret things legally entered into in another location that civil union it is presumed will be accumulating things buying things selling things only things not owning things what are we supposed to do with those things prior to the time the act when they entered into legal you in there as legal civil union and we're told as a result of that you are now a married or that person so no civil union record would you agree that there's oftentimes it's hard to determine what is the date of the acquisition of this particular piece of property for example opening a business was the day did you run to the store front civil union property in the seventy three twenty seven percent split and i'd like to turn but yet the court you asked them where there's maybe some confusion the court used what he believed to be in marriage and dissolution act and try to use the formula as if the marriage was legally entered into when it was a bit weird well to begin with we can turn have distributed the property in the same manner as the trial or and obviously each case rests on its own facts so let's look at the facts of this case and the findings of this core and again paragraph nine point for me judgment the course started out by saying in this case the pardons by entering into a civil union obviously have the attention that the relationship was more of a financial range meant otherwise there would be no purpose to the civil union and i think that it touches on what you were dressed earlier financial arrangement the court went on in here at nine point four the judgment to state that quote their contributions to the arrangement went beyond the finances of the union and those contributions must have value so again in argue that each party can keep whatever they are and would be kinda treating them as two strangers sharing an apartment lease and he went on to say better now to occur here they intend to be more than a partnership and that cannot even if their contributions be on finances are difficult to identify a value investor we get into the partnership of marriage partnership a civil unions the court made those findings and when you read those findings and then you look at the result that's the abuse of discretion here because no reasonable person could read those findings and then come to the conclusion of a court made on the division of property here judgment paragraph a and b and again i found at appendix a one of these columns brief when you look at that property division straight down the line every single asset was divided and allocated based on title who had title property division if the parties had no civil union and they were just roommates and they split up this is how they want to split up but for the seventy five thousand dollars payment they would have gone their separate ways if they had no legal the fact that the core value signoff on an asset approach means that this business could have shut down the day of the trial and there was one point two million dollars of cash sitting there nothing was hypothetical it wasn't based on future performance there was one point two billion dollars in cash and the core group that out and in the judgment itself and it was a bank accounts one account alone had eight hundred thirty five thousand dollars so that the business didn't even need to continue operating to have a value in fact it was almost a limitation value because even the inventory of the business at the time their own acts were so if you tory was purchased for five hundred thousand dollars or five hundred thirty four thousand he absolutely not in debt and i agree one hundred percent with that with a better concept because that's not what section five zero three requires which section five group of wires is a detail analysis of all of the factors and that's not what the court did he contribute and didn't even apply the contribution factor cross all the asset classes he only applied to contribution factor to what happened to be the most valuable asset the one point two million dollars of cash in title business so again that's part of the error here the error i'm not saying that there should be any certain conclusion here that this was a sixty forty split in a fifty five forty five with i can tell you though that if there were a fifty fifty amount this was not a case where there was no liquidity to make her whole so whether it's a fifty five or sixty forty whatever the percentage is the core error in analyzing their union as being more of them being roommates but into how the hiaasen case i think it probably relevant here because this statute clearly says this this is the legislative intent and the temporal range of this is legally entered into really entered into back in value and it was based on a ten year income stream and it was based on a future performance of a company since the quarter already discounted this value business down to essentially was just the bank accounts it's improper then for the quarter to say that somehow the future some of this money would have to be used for other reasons again it goes to the abuse of discretion because in essence by taking that position the court is discounting it twice seeing that was fairly innovative at the time  it's all relative to the end because the court didn't buy a value of asset value it doesn't matter what the competition it doesn't matter what the future performance of the business is none of those things are rubbish because you have one point two million dollars of cash sitting in the bank there was no evidence in this case it was all hypothetical again this was a small business that was running as a mail order a retail site it's not as of this was philip morris fighting the f d a that was kind of the loser you are going to be getting the trial but i allocation she get about one point four billion of assets so saying that really is the only meaningful substantial estimate that we're fighting about here at the other so will engage nearly you're correct but here this was the big thing this was the big ticket and everything else was what the person actually did to eat anything in any relationship they support each other you know civil union marriage whatever there's this extreme level support companionship affection but what it what it was done who formed the business who actually made it happen with those things happen somehow in this case even after the court making those findings about the civil union being more than just a roommate so how this court treated this mental state different be and i heard this in the motion to reconsider the only thing different i can see in that case in this case actually with this it was a same sex couple that was your thing i can see to explain it come from a very good point we're talking about asset class and again that's part of the media the abuse of discretion and in this point  cut the opposite way i think miss family should have had to transfer some retirement money over to miss bethia self and that's something the court can take care of on green and would apply all the factors because if you look at the balance sheet of the  hundred ninety thousand out of retirement money so for the court to apply all the factors typically will of course do his balance not only the overall numbers but also the asset classes because retirement money different  liquidate the nature of it and making an equitable distribution by applying all of the factors of five all three and not just working in one factor of contribution to the creation of the business and not just looking at one factor of one asset the number this  spoken to work for a week but it's the bigger problem with the trafford's decision it's inconsistency in these these are the things that happened but this is where i'm going to do and ignoring those who are just not inconsistent findings absolutely decimated the council cites the rossi case where again i said earlier about a case where the person got a greater percentage got all the liquid assets on the right case it was a three and a half year marriage so every case stand nine point four of the judgment were the core of this it we said you cannot ignore these other facts you cannot ignore the fact that these people were more than just roommates and that's the abuse he divided the state as if they were roommates and i f it can't be any more so hold it back to show you the use of discretion and whether his decision was colored by other aspects of the case such as the civil union vs a traditional marriage i don't know but i think got it wrong he that but that's what happened we did get him that's what we see on paper but he didn't say his decision wasn't this is you know you never see anywhere in his in his spoken words or anything that he   but again the strongest indication of whether a reasonable person would have distributed the property of the boy if this matter was to look at the court's findings with their forefathers and then look at the result and if those two don't connect better abuse