fund accumulated during the marriage and initially it was deposited into an account in the husband's name alone and eventually as things were breaking down transferred out of that account  transferred five year marriage at that point there was about three hundred thousand dollars in the account and despite the fact that the record in these the husband savings account the written order in the written post probably order that he place the burden stat on my client on the wife to prove that it was marital property and again i think he did this because he somehow didn't see that they thousand dollars or sometimes a little more per month they lived an extremely frugal life in fact my my opponent referred to it as austerity during the course of the proceedings in the court so found probably didn't of all that they didn't buy anything to speak of they were extremely thrifty and what they did buy for groceries the things like that very simple meals didn't go out to eat and to do anything add eight or nine year old it's non marital is not normally sufficient to meet the convincing evidence standard that there needs to ban documentation rule documentation of any  showed up in the joint or the account you just open in his own name and national city bank up in michigan that's the only t'ai to the father and there is no i mean just in his name as of the date of marriage back in two thousand and two that never would have no idea where that money went again that that's clearly not merrill it's possible that that money ended up in the city now we don't know because he certainly hasn't claimed that and again there's simply no crazing there's no documentation as to the source of the real source of the eighty two thousand three thousand five hundred that was also deposited opportunity to provide documentation which is what the case law seems to prefer to show or it traced where these funds came from and we had absolutely nothing except for the in the case of the two accounts the money came in and went out a fifty fifty split of those proceeds because that's pretty clearly what the court judge and with the rest of the assets that identified it would be a fairly common thing to do in a marriage of seven years duration like this of deposits of his paycheck either direct deposit paycheck into the savings account for much of that time or the records show that earlier on the pay charts were deposited in the checking account and the big chunks of paychecks thousand two thousand and twenty five hundred dollars each month was transferred into savings so a lot of the money in the now at the time it started going out was clearly merit money and there's just absolute he this is a short term marriage relatively speaking and during shortly after the marriage was a huge influx of money approaching three hundred thousand dollars that was put into this account that like my set up so it is true you start out with the idea of that that was not his room well his his testimony would say that it came from his dad or his sister her admission and then i think the argument is made and i know there is no burden on the wife too but the court three hundred thousand dollars mike right during this time was making like just a little bit in excess of fifty thousand dollars wife during the short term marriage was a kid with a bachelor's degree got her m b a and got her c p a she works for some part time hours and they live an austere life but it if they were accumulating three hundred thousand dollars you would see a gradual incremental growth in the money rather than large deposits were needed and when  consider the circumstantial evidence the fact that it came in in large chunks rather than fifty bucks here a hundred bucks or five hundred bucks here and there it came in in large chunks of money from accounts that he had with his sister he met his burden and then there has to be reimbursement now the good shifts over to never meet the wife and she then has to prove reimbursement and then she has to show the marital contributions some marital money went into this large non marital fund of money but then it becomes the non receiving a state under five or three cs becomes the receiving state so that those marital contributions the i guess it does say that and i and i gallus that the question is when you say marital account that means it was an account established during the marriage you look to the source of the funds and non marital  because if you can't dissipate non marital monies and the money should go back to interest father and something can put you on the numbers because you have a better working knowledge of the numbers than i do you said there were two initial deposit in already the eighty came from the joint account with husband and his father the forty eight thousand and forty thousand on the deposit he knew now with his sister what went out when the marriage started breaking down i think it was in two thousand and seven what did he transfer out before the marriage that then was kind of a fraud of the marriage this is a large sum it's the receiving those marital funds like in your paycheck would be transmitted into non marital money and then that number the money can be used reimbursement of marital monies from a non marital pool of money and our position is well she hasn't done that but in any event someone who was paid out for some marital expenses and it was the kind of each other out with some marital small lots of be my recollection is that was less than a year that is paychecks when in that account and this week well they were approximately three to four thousand dollars per month  then some money went to your google now as you well compared to three hundred three hundred thousand dollars it is with them or them oh we we think that because that there was that money was set up with his the sister's account and then there was this money end and money out there we believe essentially netted each other out ideally and what was the evidence of that the that the bank records and the testimony we heard her after the fact explanation as to how did the mirror just started when she came into the marriage with nothing he came in with he had this job in michigan and suddenly there's three hundred thousand dollars in there that she doesn't know where it came from that credibility was held against him right down the line until this particular issue and i think that if the quote was looking for a way to further rule against interview because of credibility issues the court would have done so but i think the truck the trial judge indicates that well because i don't know how else this could have come about this was a night basically in essence what he's saying he who does that say about what he's who he's posing the bird well but they're quite clear and convincing evidence but the court does say in the order that his explanation is logical now he doesn't us credible credible there but he says it is logical so apparently the trial court foul that the explanation of indore about that money was i guess credible logical he says that it makes it makes some sense given the fact he came in with nothing there   is from one person and that's the only thing that establishes where the money's from the father and i know there were these joint accounts but it's his testimony that the monies from the father and that burden as you recognize is on your inference that maybe he was putting the burden on wife but then other than on the mostly reconsider i think the court cleared that up by saying the court believed them and still raised today that the source of the finest came from outside the marriage and th finding of lack of credibility on that but again going back to this question i mean i mean maybe i'm just being overly simple simplistic about it but then i you know when the in the civil case where there's been a preponderance of the evidence  has them come to a conclusion that i'm going to assume it came from results lightsource i got again because there's a finding of work or credibility from the only testimony about word came i don't i think if you take interest testimony possible that the money came from dad sister because she the debris met her she had no explanation other than this lifestyle business and then you read the coroner who hears the evidence and sees the people and says i'm going to  logical i think that's reasonable efforts i would believe you don't think in the documentation which usually are not met or evidence when especially when people have the burden of proof who would have had down the access wife's attempt to what we believe to get a big payday it was wife's attempt to say well we saved this money over the marriage and i think what the court saying is here is that's ludicrous ludicrous now how the order was drafted perhaps that first testimony alone without documentation is not sufficient to meet that burden that's assuming the testimony is credible and here in the court found that doesn't was not credible there simply no way that the burden of proof house inability to provide out on this that convinced him as was i so i think this general not everybody seems to be overlooking the fact that the evidence fairly shows the husband's entire paycheck was put in a savings for thirteen account the initial large transfers nineteen's ninety seven thousand one hundred twenty six dollars march nineteenth again one hundred thousand dollars march twentieth fifty thousand march twenty third twenty thousand and march thirtieth ten thousand and so on the lot of them are in the lobby for twelve days total two hundred seventy seven thousand dollars it was taken out so he was simply turning the money that his father had provided get i mean if you that there was there was not one nation for one more of the al but again all that accumulated during the marriage of the presumption is it's all marital property so i think i think the only thing that any documentation that would would that's totally insufficient because it doesn't go the source were it worth the money it could easily be money that was accumulated during the marriage that was transferred through those accounts for probably four hours and joint account we don't know there's there is no documentation by the in the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the husband we've also set forth on page a sixteen of our appendix the balance in that hundred thirty one thousand through those joint accounts and after that you know the balance keeps going up there were some of the rolls around there too ya split the balance keeps going up and goes from one hundred thirty one thousand and the summer of two thousand fired up to basically two hundred ninety seven thousand immediately before all these withdrawals happened in march of two thousand and salo and that process took place over the course of several monson fact it was still transfers were still going on at the of the entire four one k balance of the time of the divorce and did not allow in her any anything for his non marital money that he brought in to the marriage we believe that was rare because we proved that there was a balance is not a large balance as three or four thousand dollars got me look at the record here that he went to balance as of about six months before the parties marriage was between three and four thousand dollars and he should have kept that that should have been segregated out and his she should have got fifty percent only of that portion accumulated during the marriage so