assumption it i think it's readily apparent from this record around here that there was some sort of negotiated negotiations going on before that included that videotaped statement and then they heard afterwards and tell and tell the actual sean from defense counsel when he's in the room making the videotape statement he says at the very end i want to go outside and make sure you know check with these guys to make sure we're ok what that implies is that there was a deal in place in the first i was the system state's attorney made this statement as part of the deal with the state the state is not upholding its end of the bargain that's what that was the nature of his argument before the court and the state never they never say well this wasn't part of the deal they never say it was that this was a mistake and was given resolve this case under the facts of this case is to find that the admission of the statement was harmless error in any event and that would follow the procedural posture of training not which was cited in the people's briefing that case it was a stipulated that case the defendant was in prison on suspicion of murdering his eleven year old stepdaughter he was beginning to get some rough treatment from the other inmates and then he befriended another inmate who was actually paid informant for the f error could be harmless because it was similar in degree and kind to the impact of our lower erroneous lee admitted constitutional violation ear piece and specifically stated that the evidence and if this court were not to find the people submit that once was harmless because the two witness that would testified and it was the shooter that defendant had had problems with one of the victims really having a gun in his brother's yard that he knew through one of the co defendants where observed creeping in the alley behind the area around the time of the offense also defendant cell phone had been left at the scene and he immediately went to get a new cell phone the same cell phone number right after the defense plus the dark green lincoln town car a reasonable doubt that that this error was harmless mr banks and a stipulated bench trial because the circuit court would not suppress the statement have the circuit court acted appropriately and suppress the statement then you never would have gone t should have that opportunity to have a fair trial and that's all i'm really framework to analyze this issue well vision i think that this record is sufficient to share with this statement was made as part of the plea deal i think if you look at the entire context he gets arrested he doesn't make any emissions he denies everything he denies everything what i what i also don't want to happen your honor is for this to go into the post conviction process and then the trial does say while they argue this on appeal but shoot it down if this court finds that the record is insufficient at this point then let this go to a post conviction right dow we are grateful you have allowed us this opportunity to be here today and discuss with you the numerous errors made by the trial court in dissolving the parties twenty four year marriage which require reversal the illinois marriage and dissolution of marriage act is predicated on principles of equity and fairness these concepts are woven throughout the statute specifically in the mandate to allocate the marriage all the states in just proportions and to ensure equitable distribution accordingly a critical step in this process is a trial court criminate maintenance and a proper amount although mary raises additional challenges to the circuit court's judgment in her briefs if you try to limit the time with you we will focus on our discussion on these three issues in this order but of course we'll be happy to answer any questions you may at here is a valuation is a question of fact and that question of fact is reviewed on the manifest weight of the evidence standard there was a dispute in the grease between us and our opposing counsel as to what the what the standard of review was and i think that your honors have answered that  of the evidence in the trial court's ruling itself the trial court said the point that starts if i don't both experts to be well qualified unlike what opposing counsel said at pages twelve and nineteen of their brief the court did not find that mary's expert mr is more reasonable as a benchmark for evaluation purposes there is no explanation in the record of why the court found us and mr magoo to himself was asked if there was a parity for him to be using the n f c a database as opposed to mr christmas use of the opportunity reports that were prepared by mcdonald's itself and which more localized to the top fifty percent restaurants within the the t v market and that location is critical according to mr cressman and having a proper evaluation mr majida said that he had no half million dollars higher than then than what he came in with using the end of ca reports and he instead of said that the opportunity reports were valuable tools in valuation there is no basis on the record for the court to have filed at the end of ca database was more reasonable benchmark for evaluation purpose it he admitted that none of them may have even been in illinois unlike with the opportunity reports that mr quest me used to normalize the figures he chose not to compare the stores by reason or location are not part of the end of ca the database far from being more reasonable was rather under reasonable to use and i'd like to speak one moment about mr gta himself mr majida was honest and that first and foremost we can see that here it was measured as a two thousand twenty eight level one that was the date of the trial court selected for that this was going to be the valu because these are mcdonald's restaurants that mcdonald's itself is the leader in the fast food industry and will continue to have broken it which it sees other franchise systems because it's brand recognition so by and by virtue of the fact that these are seventy pounds restaurants is our position that means you have recently increased future capital reinvestment expenses and the rebuild expenses and we detail that in our brief you will see that they were front loaded expenses and he also attributed excessive cost to all of these expenses to decrease the value so that's when the head would present a basis at servicing and we think there's going to be eight hundred thousand dollars absolute you have that correct around or it was an additional eight hundred thousand dollars for that for those particular reinvestments on top of another three on and they have everything be paid off in the first year which is a typical according to mr preston you see it's a fifty fifty split with mcdonald's and it's a it's pro rated over a period of ten years there along with another one point three million dollar devaluation  there was another the fact that mr mcgee they used a thirty percent discount rate for the tenley one store they out alone was one million we have one million one point three million the other eight hundred thousand dollars that you pointed out all of these assumptions were all in croons and they were and they were borne out to be incorrect because to project a few hundred thousand dollars that we're talking about by the end of two to be incurred by the end of december thirty first twenty eleven it never happens property based upon what mister his his valuation of course is going to increase in marital property that needs to be redistributed and then we have the issue of mary's maintenance as well you know i know that i'm running short on time but i'd like to touch on it before i sit down if i may because that's very important she is that perfect candidate for permanent residence and she was given maintenance which is a which has of course review in three years mary has no work skills she has no experience she has everything that all of the permanent maintenance recipients have in the cases we're going to make this has been given and mary was given rehabilitative made in the review of three years and the court also said that if she would not did that she managed to households she supported her husband success she lost and she impaired her employment skills during all of these years and she's now not given maintenance unlike the wife and enter a marriage of the right to have a law degree who had a publishing career she was given permanent maintenance in remarriage of nord the wife had sixty six thousand dollars in potential income from properties and she still was given permanent maintenance and in remarriage a brand and the wife worked as a schoolteacher and earned seventy five thousand dollars a year and still was given permanent maintenance durance counsel in his brief says that only does not respond to any of these cases only says well you know they were affirmed because there was no abuse of discretion the only one that he his being proper or the spouse is not employable or only employable at a low income which would result in a lifestyle deficit and that's what many hands here after taxes she has eleven thousand dollars a month to live on after having a lifestyle where she in there and enjoy the nice that was sixty two thousand dollars a month and spending and he still lives that way as is set forth in her grief he still has exactly the same lifestyle he has two homes and he spends thirty thousand dollars a month on to keep his three hundred sixty three hundred sixty thousand dollars a year  reflected statements made by the founders personnel that this was not that it was activity and there was testimony at trial that said that he had a very unique situation and that they were comforted by the fact that they knew about the trust and i won't say anything more about there are no was not an independent experts he was already had a personal and preexisting relationship with their in which was not disclosed the proof that his valuations were not reliable is because they didn't occur just as a brian you asked about the eight hundred thousand intenti opposed to take place at the end of twenty eleven they never happens you know that alone we know that's in the record he projected those to happen and they never happened that was almost a million dollars right there which devalued the  these he talks opposing counsel talks about what daring does and how different it is that is not that play into the definition of what the fair market value is both experts use revenue ruling fifty nine sixty which  fair market value is what a building in buyer and a willing seller will do in the open market the fact that there is expenses ran four percent higher would mean if somebody came in to look at those opportunity reports and said hey i can make more money if i take those expenses down by four percent so is it reliable it's hit or miss there in some stores and in that database of the day i can only trust it just a straight you asked about a i think the conversation here shows what we try to show in our briefs that there is so much uncertainty about the calculation and what apartment over the garage there was in the big box and you have you have pictures of it in the appendix he lived there she lived in the little apartment over the garage until two months prior to time to trial she had really no opportunity to know what her expenses were she this record and based upon what you know and what you've seen is the equivalent of fixing a stamp of approval upon an act with he and fairness to marry we ask that you correct the numerous errors of the circuit court and then you officer it's not mr henry just writing a piece of paper i was on boxes and rest but all and terrible this was confirmed from the brain an apartment that mr henning was on psychotropic medications during the time that he was standing trial below that when i come out he wasn't fleshed out at trial and also i would like to point out that i'm brown at least there west questioning of trial counsel all about that defendants fitness and the trial court regard and it's something that could not be addressed in a direct appeal only way to do it is because through the closed commission hearing out because it does implicate matters outside the record which is basically what happened between him and counsel we know for a fact that she misrepresented him being on medication when she told the trial court he wasn't on medication and  however this is a first page postcondition proceeding where the threshold is very low for the pleading that he has made a constitutional claim the gist of a constitutional claim that half an hour ago basis in fact and in go bass as what's on the record doesn't positively her by the claims in the petition we don't know what happened between mr henry and council there any discussion whatsoever the fact that he's living wrote responses in a structured environment yes no question doesn't mean anything i mean one of those allegations you drowsy so why would he be having outbursts these are all questions that should be determined in the second stage and we ask that you filed a majority opinion in brown and reject the state place of business that on february twenty seventh two thousand and ten she was walking with a companion into the restaurant as she was broken into the restaurant she observed her companion who was walking in front of her slip and she continued walking towards the restaurant entrance in the parking lot she fell with what she described as ice in the parking lot fellas she broke her ankle he will she stood back out she noticed specifically there was no evidence of a great and in the record there is a page that talks about the fact that the hair on the sidewalk is snails so that anything would drain away from the girls of the room when the restaurant that it would go out into the step around but skillet and i am here today to respectfully request that you affirm the trial court finding of summary judgment the long standing case line illinois that landowners do not generally have a duty to remove national accumulations of ice if that it is voluntarily undertaken the duty that becomes one of reasonable this accumulation of whatever it was got into the parking lot that day plaintiff counsel argues that his intent was the assumption that there was snow in the sidewalk that he salting somehow melted that snow that this melted snow then flowed its way down into the parking lot to the grade and refroze however there is no evidence whatsoever that there was any snow on the sidewalk on the day of the plane's fall she did not recall the whether the defendant representative do not recall the weather at the day of the fall she fell about midnight furthermore there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there was any snow removal performed on the day of my fall or in the days leading up to her fall there's she that there was nothing consistent with the presence of snow ploughs she testified there was no snow on the sidewalk she testified that she did not recall whether or not there was snow in the parking lot and so i think that's another problem with their theory of this case with regards to the weather  the defendant representative testified to it was vague at best he testified that when he arrived the next morning there might have been for his he had no recollection again of the weather the day prior and he further testified that the weather could have been somewhere between thirty two and thirty eight degrees he did not recall furthermore it plainer first off as your honour's have pointed out does not know what she felt she testified that she fell on ice but the follow up questions as your honor pointed out she didn't really know what she felt the questions were posed did you see the ice before you slipped no i did not did you see the ice after you slipped i don't remember if you know how that ice was how that ice made you fall i need i don't know i could have no i'm not probably could have i don't remember was her answer she has no idea what made her fall she's completely assuming that she fell on ice because she saw her companion slip in a different area of the parking lot and she testified to so again that she has she somehow aggravated in the natural accumulation well that's true of the work so well yes correct she there is there is no evidence of snow removal there is no evidence of snow piled anywhere on the sidewalk there was no evidence of any snow removal anywhere at the property by all accounts it sounds like it was a fairly clear not fairly clear sidewalk that happened to have some salt on it again she has no idea what caused her to fall and there is certainly no evidence that my client somehow created that  and you're free of y ability yes but the theory is that there was something on the sidewalk that rained down because you looked body to whatever was on the sidewalk and once it went down to a boulder area that was just a firm in the second district where that was the testimony it was an ongoing blizzard and i represented snow removal contractor and the testimony from the plaintiff was that we never came out during a blizzard and never have the parking parking lot where she fell and it was a friend that she did slip on a very large amount of ice in the middle of the parking lot but it was nothing more than national humiliation  again without any sort of evidence whatsoever to point to even support their theory that this water somehow melted off the snow and got into the parking lot i think summary judgment was completely appropriate i'm in favor of my client there is no liability here there was no duty in the record i can't answer that question oh wow the only thing i would say is this and again we're in the summer in terms of motion stage i haven't had an opportunity to call the owner as a witness and to