prior business experience whatsoever nor did she have any higher tax preparation business she relied on and expertise as a tax preparer for many years and look to handle as a mentor the course percent from funds obtained from a follow says home equity line of credit and that mrs shane contributed zero nothing to that account was it poor corporate practice absolutely but there was no demonstration of harm to this change let alone fraud also raised as as a commission of fraud was the fact that my client dissolved the business that the two ladies had opened my client dissolved the business based upon the repeated urgings of her attorney now one thing that's very important to understand is that miss shayne was not on the corporation by her own design she did not give theresa any shares of her existing corporation she abandoned the corporation after only two months in its infancy in the fall of the year when no tax preparation work was going on and am was experienced with corporate procedures and could have easily put her name on have she so chosen and contributed nothing to this business another finding a fraud was that my client formed a competing business after the dissolution of the initial corporation that the two had formed however my client was just opening a new business after the dissolution of the first was a continuation of the same business under a different corporate name that an was not on initially she was not on that business i her own design and by her own choice in fact and left to to do business to do tax preparation work for many of the same clients in a competing business and she left after she had received more than the seventy five thousand dollars purchase price for fifty percent of the business and  e she had that money in her pocket she left in fact there were undocumented funds of cash that my client paid to miss shank that didn't even get injured in the because of the fact that they were non traceable funds what is also very interesting that machine did not that she had ever signed the bill of sale for the for two reese's purchase of the business and having actually entered into that bill of sale with the trees the fall another assignment a fraud was the fact that my client assigned the lease in this change former business to the new business without being an officer on mischance former business now my observation is that if it was actually going to enter into this new business enterprise with teresa and should have assigned it to the new business why didn't she do that and enter into the business know in to be enterprise knowing they were to form a new corporation and various precisely why she didn't want to be on the new corporation as i will address in a moment and never pay the rent to that landlord after all the trees that and robert were paying it at the time that the new corporation was file and how could she come in good conscience go forward with a lease on a business to a former corporation that wasn't even lease and premises anymore without assigning it how could this be fraud on my did not want to be an owner and took no actions to become one she clerk out with her business experience he usually amended the articles of incorporation she said that she was not made a business partner owner on the standard of proof for frog under these circumstances was clear and convincing evidence the finding of fraud against my clients was against the manifest weight of the evidence and palpably erroneous how i posed this question how could teresa and robert to a lesser degree since he was not involved in the tax preparation business how could they be guilty of fraud when they were the ones they gave all the money to and shamed and receive little or no benefit in return the next point i would like to address is the calculation of the damages by the lower court i claim that it w flaw the court found that there was a loss of income over the suffering years of the operation of the corporation of five hundred nineteen thousand nine hundred thirty six which included personal expenses that my client paid out of this business account that an contributed nothing to according to aaron's calculations which the court accepted over the expert witness calculations she the income derived over those several years was three hundred two thousand out of which according to an two hundred seventeen thousand five ninety were expended in personal expenses by an in robert however the just in in fixing the loss of income used the total ordinary income over those years the three hundred two thousand dollars figure and added to it the two hundred seventeen thousand five hundred ninety dollars to come up with the five hundred nineteen nine thirty six this was absolutely wrong no matter which way you look at it you can't include you can of the personal expenses were paid out of that same three hundred two thousand income he took that three hundred two thousand and on and on top of that added in addition another two hundred seventeen thousand five ninety to come up with his loss of income finding it was also completely erroneous and unjust for the court to have only given my client credit for thirty percent a thirty percent contribution to the value of the corporation by aaron shanks own testimony and claimed that she had received sixty six thousand dollars in payments from theresa and robert that's forty four percent of the value of the corporation the court found look at the corporation they considered it to be worth one hundred fifty thousand trees it was to pay for fifty percent of their or seventy five thousand and knowledge receiving sixty six thousand mr full auto the expert said he could trace sixty eight thousand dollars in payments to and from the phalluses that would be forty five point three percent of the total value of the corporation yet john the honorable judge rossi only found that my client contributed thirty percent that completely skewed the damage award and of course we are you and my client testified he paid the seventy five thousand plus sun and mr a lot of the and shake in addition no compensation was figured into the judge's happens trampy taishan for my clients recent to resell work and she worked hard she ended up cleaning up all of our hits and previous business or the majority of those audits and she was entitle to reasonable compensation for her work in efforts in addition the court  indicated in my brief fail to take into account the full amount of compensation and earned in a competing business the court said my client was competing by opening a new company on the heels of the dissolution of the first one that i argue my client was entitle to dissolve yet the judge did not finally brought by an opening and in doing competing tax work and even opening the seventy five thousand plus dollars or the sixty eight thousand that the expert or even the sixty six thousand and herself admitted receiving how can that findings s when my clients gave everything receive practically nothing in return well as i alluded to earlier this was a classic bait and switch on the part of an chain she received the money and she was after and my car and even the payments to her to the tune of five thousand dollars in a and took those checks and cashed them when they were posted or attempted to so i am got the benefit of all of this my client spent thousands of dollars renovating the business premises and and took the money and left before the tax season even began what was to resell left with a huge debt on her own home equity loan and robert also she was luck with the liability of the lease she was left with nothing from an except with the possible exception of the client base and also had she took that from the business and she was left with the work of cleaning up and audits and then to add insult to injury she attempted to a victim robert interests this is reminiscent because pam wasn't on the lease nor was her business and was on their lease this is very reminiscent of that situation in this case teresa and the new corporation was not on the lease thank you so she was going down the very same road except my car and had the foresight to get make they have assignment of the lease with follow the procedures under the business corporation act he said into solving the corporation he was using the certain methodology he ordered seventy percent of the corporation value to  and not letting her go on it and make her living with her in her usual and customary this is this was the most harmful part of all when the judge had already dissolved the company why shouldn't she have gone why shouldn't  in the surrenders abuse i asked for an outright reversal of the lower court's judgment and i think as i argued in my brief if anything the fraud was by and against robert  say there should be a finding of fraud against and change and then the cessation of damage against an in favor of the foulest as for at least the sixty eight thousand dollars the expert was able to before is that they specifically leave out a vast number of exhibits that were there we have thirty she had thirty four different our exhibits that were there twenty one of our thirty four exhibits you have the two thousand seven eight nine income tax returns from the businesses are for seventy five or four something not which show deductions that were taken from home equity loans and the like these are all exhibits that are stream provide information to me is that there did the presumption exists that the trial court has made the correct factual and legal decision in this case they followed the rules that followed the laws and did the correct thing with story that council has put before you today that story cannot challenge the trial court because they haven't provided you the full record to be able to see how that whether that challenge will be accurate  even whether it agrees with the trial court but the trial court actually sides discretion and act arbitrarily without conscientious judgment review of all the circumstances in the case exceed the bounds of reason ignore principles of law and justice substantially justice  and in and in this particular case when you go back and look at judge rossi's memorandum off life decision he set forth and in the first eleven pages eleven pages worth of about a dozen specific findings of wrongful acts that the files were engaged in the council today before you can still use sure but that's not again that's not really what the score is for that's in fact when you say that they don't give you any just a ship as to why should aussies belief in that way is actually wrong and that's what they have to do with the bush question standing they have to specifically set that up they have witness in any way shape or form thank you and in mr flowers report which is also attached to the part of the record on page seven of the report it says specifically in the third paragraph about this is the court appointed receiver things as you can see any exhibits three four five i attempted to recalculate such financial results but i cannot express any opinion as to the validity or the correctness of the end result and the reason why is because  never provided that the documentation to complete the record for the report is speculation he himself cannot even say that this is an accurate report for the calculation of damages and now they stand before you and they say all the court needing a requirement to be calculated by expert witness in this particular situation there's there's nothing that says that a party cannot come up with their own damn or come up with the wrong on their own your calculation of damages and in this instance the honor i agree with mr crewe by that that we do not need an expert to determine that thirty percent of the value of the corporation of one hundred fifty thousand dollars is forty five thousand dollars and herself forget about the expert witness mr lotto whether you had all the information you needed or not he he and herself said she got sixty six thousand are there something wrong here and it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that my clients didn't turn over information is it true they didn't i think it is i was not their trial counsel so but from what i understand there were some gaps however as i've indicated we're not shine from the fact that my clients made mistakes i suspect a lot of what he was asking for they didn't have they were we did not follow the correct standard of review we didn't set forth the standard of review i would like to mention that that was fully briefed in my reply the cases of thomas merriman marriage of  move all of those cases say a brief can restart them if the errors are so egregious as to preclude review however all of those cases in all of those cases the court did not strike brief the court said that there was enough in the record and and i apologize if i didn't put enough in regarding the standard of review i'm not extremely experienced doing this and now i know  record i'm wondering why mr krupa didn't file a motion to admit exhibits in this case if you felt those exhibits were so crucial for your review and a lot of the reason we didn't and we didn't request to admit all of those exhibits was because my clients admitted they did use the bank account for personal use we can refute them and somehow or other similar problems so i don't know why the exhibits would help to bolster something my client said that they did grant when they understand they're not supposed to do that now  yes and and i and i submitted the ones that i felt were relevant to the issues in the case to the real issues that were in dispute not the ones that were not in dispute my client mr cooper argues about the abuse of discretion my client's position is the judge's horrendous math was the rejection of the x ers this was all in the fact that aaron abandoned the business after getting the money and the court not reviewing their evidence was a terrible abuse it worked a terrible injustice for the for the follow still living through this has as it is the thank you the court was silent on these issues absolutely silent he i could understand if the judge said well i don't find this testimony to be credible or i am not considering it for this reason he didn't say that he didn't say that the expert was not credible he was silent on the whole issue