twenty seven thousand five hundred dollars per month is last twenty five percent because when you get three hundred fifty thousand dollars for his welcome for little nine hundred ninety thousand twenty seven thousand five hundred dollars  intended purpose of leveling the playing field of that act allows for an award of attorney's fees well kyra he is unable to pay and the other party has the ability to do so in this case the first district did exactly as it should and they got it right on the fee issue and applied your buying decision in schneider and it reversed the trial court's order that mr here i pay a hundred sixty thousand of mrs to casey's on the basis that she failed to satisfy her burden of proof that she had an inability to pay her fees now in her opening brief to this court mrs she came violated at least five sections of rural three forty one and we point that out she honors at pages one nine hundred twenty before you go on about snyder the reason schneider and only argued inability to pay and as opposing counsel notes schneider referenced not only an ability to pay but also that the trial court had considered the inability of inability to pay applied in light of the ninety seven amendments and that in the twenty ten amendments had not yet even been enacted so is this a good case opposed to create but be that as it may in schneider the issue was presented here others on cross appeal by the right and i think that we have a ready to sume that this court treated the cross appeal with no less research nor analysis than the lead appeal was treated with it was brought to this court again on a pretty creepy case where you would look at five o three and five zero four because you have a marital estate at that point the court is trying to divide the marital estate that's a very important distinction and pretty to create cases as opposed to putting where you have no marital estate and you can't true it up at the end so that's a that's a distinction and that's what appropriately applied the amended law again it was eight years after the leveling of the playing field amendments at that time and you correctly found that there was no contribution which was to be had by the wife at the end of the marital dissolution because she had an inability to pay based upon the division of assets and they are saying that the inability to pay concept that you apply to schneider is absolutely correct your honor is absolutely got it concept from the earliest earliest common law back towards the turn of the century and at one hundred seventeen point three of our brief describes this concept and traces its evolution and in a nutshell the inability to pay through all of the different amendments that we've had that's never been altered and the general assembly i think quite significantly that were invented five away day after schneider after your decision and schneider to express expressed any can't as how she tries she can't run away from that argument because how can is the of the solution that was the catalyst to cause the splits within the apollo more so than half to deal with hate and in brief it's interesting to hear counsel say that he had doubts he can now in her brief response of her reply brief to our response it's not mentioned not once not once instead she substitutes the argument that the inability to pay discussion in your honour's case in disproportionate share of the maryland states in the amount of three point seven million dollars at the time of the three thousand and six divorce second mrs chip they received significant income and the form of roughly five million dollars and maintenance for the past four years rose the statutes including very specifically in terms of leveling the playing field the issue of fees that they chose not the words inability to pay amendment is that your argument right back particularly the controlling language and finally day was never touched that first scientists was it was never touched and again the nine hundred ninety seven amendments as we can see from the you say there was no reason for the legislature to include this concept into this new statute itself interesting what we're saying is that it was always there it was always understood from the get go that this is what it  the nineteen ninety seven that leveling the playing field amendments again that specific targeted problem that practitioners were seeing was that happened beginning of a case when you have a traditional marriage situation and you had a very money and then perhaps a stay at home wife or stay at home mother who didn't have access to the finances that there was the problem that was intended to be remed playing field was at the very beginning of a divorce case and it was a lack of access that's the law lay is to be able to have access to funds at the beginning of the proceeding and in again looking at the stand the plain language again it speaks for itself in all such proceedings modification of maintenance the court shall consider the political factors and one of them is the reasonableness of the efforts where they are appropriate here the trial court found that she had made some efforts but the test is reasonable efforts reasonable under the circumstances of each party's case and here mrs chick is a principle not reasonable for three main itself characterized as quote feeling good money after day ad she made no efforts to rehabilitate herself or get any kind of training with respect to her librarian experience she has a master's degree in library science  y she did get such some some retraining but it was for a nine dollars an hour each in our block tax preparer job which is seasonal so i minimum wage job you know eight this this