court knows and file this brief with basically four issues concerning the trial court's opinion the st issue is the issue of maintenance it's evident from the court's opinion that the court failed to consider mr west's extraordinary out of pocket medical expenses in the calculation of his mate and soar his gross income the record i think demonstrates that mr west has stage four lung cancer on his financial affidavit exhibit sixty one dollars demonstrated that he had around six hundred and thirty dollars in monthly out of pocket expenses for that and also the af to mean that the laws clear that the main statute refers back to the child support statute in the calculation of gross and income and one of the deviation factors in the  statute is extraordinary medical expenses in addition to the main statute five a for a fourteen allows for the court to consider other factors which will be relevant for determining maintenance in this case the court didn't give any consideration to this factor in fact there's not even a mention of it in the court's opinion just mission anyway to submission that he doesn't believe it doesn't mention that it's not apple doesn't make any mention of there's no consideration no discussion nothing regarding this issue it clearly isn't horton factor given the fact that if you add the out of pocket medical expenses to the maintenance my claim would be eight hundred and sixty five dollars a month in the red and unable to pay for his medical treatments that he needs to maintain his his cancer treatments vision india eyesight of the case the court  secondarily in the courts trial court's opinion may the court which was i believe pure speculation indicated that mr west was going to receive social security benefits some point in the  future there was no evidence before the trial court that he was going to receive social security benefits how much they would be when he would be eligible there was no evidence of any of that my client was a state employee while he worked for the prison system get a pension there was not any evidence of this and the court indicated in its opinion that part of the basis remains what was he was going to receive social security benefits some point and the rd issue or the rd thing in the opinion on that relates to his calculation of maintenance i really didn't touch much on my brief that he does he also indicated that mr west is going to receive cola increases in this pension benefits and again there was no evidence of that at all i mean i don't have no idea if that's true or not there was no evidence against a minor issue but all these things combined i believe support the fact that this court should reverse intervene and for a reconsideration of the maintenance amount if any based on the court in treatment to this day i don't i didn't i i think it just kind of implied that he was healthy and i don't know where that came from because that's not ash i mean he he was doing ok i mean that is true he was doing ok for a while but he still ha aren't well i don't believe they did because that will tell you things i mean that question was never asked but and i don't think for the record but those payments are after like i believe were used for some other things not medical expenses  what i believe the act that's what happens i mean i don't think that's in the record or no one ever asked that but that's what i think it's so his calculation did not include the afterlife stuff including what he paid me because i think if you look at the one exhibit i go review the court's opinion letter will see that the only thing the court said about the camper and trackers far d as it's being distinguish between being maryland non marital was that they used the same he said for the same reasons i find the house to be marijuana find a tractor in the camper well as a court house in the briefs and reading the opinion the issue regarding the house is entirely different i mean the house was quickly and in fact to joint tenancy during the marriage i think the burden is entirely different and it's entirely different argument about whether or not you know there was intent to get that the camper it was stipulated was only in mr west's name title only mr west name there the evidence was that that is that accurate but again the statutes still provides that property to exchange property gifted to you exchanged for property later maintained as non marital care the court in address that issue at all been made made no finding or no evidence those doctors or anything on the issue just said for the same reasons as i find the house merrill i find the camera well i don't believe that's accurate statement of the law you had to find either that it was one gifted to both of them which i don't think there is that much evidence your strong evidence that that's really the only thing they could have found but that didn't happen because otherwise if it was property it was property exchanged for property that was gifted haven't had to be as non marital property in the tractor i guess is about the same argument i mean there was no doubt that mr west there is no controverted evidence that mr in fact mr west traded in his premarital nassif isn't one hundred and seventy five tractor fact regarding it doesn't cite any statute or case law in any way about the issue and as such because it's presumed based on it being property obtained in exchange for monreal property it's presumed to be remain  but the core found the marital without any any findings contrary so we have i have a question with the trade in on the camper and the new tractor were those paid in full or is there a i am not certain about that i don't believe there was any testimony about that about whether there was extra money thrown in or not i don't i don't believe it was i don't remember that honestly if it right now but i know the tractor that there was extra money somewhere but again i i believe that the it would be the burden if there's someone seeking reimbursement would be their burden to prove that the marital status should be reimbursed for the money merrill money that was used if it doesn't change the characterization of the property it's not there i think the n if in fact merrill money was used on those two items then it's the burden of the other side to say well we get reimbursement merrill station to reimburse those funds there isn't any evidence of that so the reversal argument was never made i think that's the correct argument the reimbursement not it's not it's marital that are going to be the parents they should be reimbursed well isn't there a flip side to that argument that there wasn't tent yet at the time a train in the in joint tenancy or anything like that it only remained in his name and a bill of sale on the track it was only to my client so there wasn't any anything that transferred it jointly or made it jointly held by the parties on either one of those ok thank you that the decision was made under duress a bit placing the house in joint tenancy there is extensive testimony by mr west about what happened here about his side of the story you know was that he had no intention of making a gift to the to the estate of that house that he felt like he was tad no choice because of this whole condition and the constant complaining of his life it's the case really  he testified directly at page sixteen my brief i think i cite this language but it does apply directly that he did not intend to make a gift in fact he even said that when he when he himself he saw prepared and he didn't go to a lawyer  was in very bad condition with cancer it was only after this incident that he decides that he must transfer the house to her because he said i thought i'd end up in a nursing home i don't think that cost you don't have a tent i mean i think his   where the donor manifests an intent to make such a guest michael as testified otherwise you did not wish to make said he said he didn't do it for over twenty years of marriage and effectively what the trial court says is well twenty years is a long time to be married because they've been married a long time it's a long time for something remain non marital well that's not the law that's all i mean it is i mean if something's non marital could be non marital forever if it's not merrill's on merit now the case is different here because he did transfer and i mean he did do that but i don't think that just saying the passage of time led to but that's ok i'm putting my time is out  but i was just going i was just going to say that the other thing that they it's in the opinion i think it's pure speculation is that the wife spent her money from her goneril house on the house when there was no evidence this court that the decisions and judgment made by the trial judge shipley it should be upheld it is not our opinion that any of these particular decisions and judgments were made in error as it relates to the maintenance calculations and that's where mr skinner started i think i'll try and work down the list as well with respect to the maintenance calculation and i believe in this particular case it is very important to know those affleck payments regardless of what those payments were used for the reality and those payments exist and over a thirteen month period averaging those payments they  to the tune of approximately four hundred and fifty dollars per month that sufficiently balances out a six hundred and thirty dollars a month out of pocket medical expense there is still some medical expense and we're not think that that doesn't exist however two hundred dollars a month in medical expenses is significantly different than six hundred and thirty dollars a month and medical expenses regardless of what those payments were used for the fact is those payments do exist and they asked to bounce out that's the purpose of those policies so whether or not and again mr skinner is right there is no evidence as to what that money went to but it does balance it  out the fact that there was no specific reference made to the alleged extraordinary medical expenses that does not lead one to the belief that the trial judge simply failed to consider it i think it's just a matter of it didn't rise to the level of being you know any other factor that the court finds particularly relevant under a fourteen in the main statute i believe he is also suggests that you know each factor under the meet that statute is not entitled to equal weight as long as the result of maintenance award is reasonable under the circumstances then the award should be upheld the judge doesn't specifically need to discuss each and every factor so long as each factor is considered by the judge i believe we find that in the he's that in remarriage ignored and they were citing the renard case there  so again our position is simply that even if the court should have expressly weighed the medical expense even in doing so it would not change the ultimate result ultimate result is that we have a calculation that was relied upon by the court which lists the specific gross income the net incomes of the parties and those are not there's no extra money accounted for in those as it relates to say social security or any potential cola increases so while eight i would agree the court did very recently mention those things i don't believe that those rises to the level of creating error here and even so as you stated are brief even if there was it would be harmless error because again the result of maintenance award is reasonable and equitable here and i believe the differences in the incomes of the party is over two thousand dollars at the end of the month and the court's opinion and the record supports that there's no real death here so again we believe that if there were we understand that the court did not specifically go through and list out the reasons for finding both the jayco fis we'll camper and the i age eighty four as marital some of the reasoning at the core utilized in the residence is absolutely a clickable here and the to reverse the judgment here is to require that the opposite conclusion in evidence try court said that the husband wishes to portray the wife as playing the ultimate long con having realized the profit on her house she now wish to take half of the profits from his and has by her time over twenty years waiting for an opportune moment the evidence simply does not support this hypothesis the trial court is in the absolute best position to gauge the credibility of the witnesses and the testimony provided in this case contrary to what the appellant supports the evidence in this case is very opposite one another at every turn it's very much anything you can do i can do better  of a trial here if husband were to say black white i would say white and unfortunately because of that we have to rely very heavily on the trial court's opinion here because the truck was the one in the position to you the credibility observe the character and demeanor of everybody testifying at any given time the husband would  testify i think he testified once or twice that the jayco th wheel camper was received by trading in a camper that his parents gave to him but there was also a very specific portion of the testimony where he testified i believe on direct to his counsel you know did you know the earth did your nephew know you were going  down to look for another camper well actually we were just going down to visit him we were going down to visit him and then we had the camper that my folks gave us so their husband says the camper my folks gave us which is then later supported by the wife testimony where and she testified she believed that the cancer was a gift to both of them the husband further who was on stating you know when we got there we started looking around we weren't really planning on buying we just started looking around there was a camper and we like that all of the we used in that particular statement i think far outweigh the couple of statements that the husband does make where he  says my temper that i got from my parents because when he really gets into the normal rhythm of speaking it's very apparent that the swiss is their property not just his property and wife testimony supports that so there is some opposite testimony there as it relates to the i h eighty four again i don't think that there is any quibble with the fact that that the trade in on that would have been a non marital tractor however there was some additional monies owed in the husband's testimony was that that was probably from the equity line during the marriage that equity line i think the record is pretty pretty heavy with reference to that that that's what the parties used to go out and buy things both of them during the marriage that's what they used to pay bills that's what they use for bigger purchases and  that was what was used to pay off the tractor which that's the only evidence we have unfortunately we don't have a hard and fast proof that this is what it was the husband did say probably the equity line even if it's not the equity line whatever other money is still been merrill money whether it's his income current com or other savings accounts it's all during the marriage so it's all marital money so then at this point we're caught somewhere trying to figure out what the value that non marital portion is versus the marital portion and again even even so this is i think ultimately valued at seven thousand dollars in america the state that's worth three one hundred and fifty thousand dollars so trying to i think at that point were trying to split hairs because that tractor was ultimately awarded the husband artist that seven thousand  kind of but it dropped in the bucket so to speak in the grand scheme of things the residents i would agree that was kind of the big one that's that's where the most testimony came from in this particular case so there's a major factual dispute with this one husband testifies as mr skinner has said that of course this is you know he's forced to use over a barrel she's raking of over the coals she's making him do this and why is testimony is no that's not actually how it went down at all you got really sick and in fact everybody agrees that that's a time when he was really sick probably the sickest he was and she started to freak out and even husband testifies yes she was worried about me not having the state plan right his own admission he says i know she was worried about that well this is one of the biggest tools we have in our disposal in this particular profession for a state planning keeping a house out of probate the best way to do that is to put it in joint tenancy this is the best estate planning tool we have so that was the wife's concern and the husband even acknowledges that so we do tend to disagree that that was a gift made to the marital estate on purpose or the purpose of the estate planning it wasn't forced it wasn't because she was threatening to leave and there's a factual dispute there too you know husband would have us believe that she had packed up her stuff and was leaving him where his wife's testimony was just simply that she was going to go take a couple days and stay with her  she took the dog because she took care of the dogs and he was sick she would only dogma house while he was sick so again we have tons of factual disputes throughout this case but particularly as it relates to the residen the deed here into joint names creates a rebuttal presumption of a gift to the marital state and that presumption can only be overcome by clear and convincing and the state will evidence we didn't get that in this case and the trial court has been very clear about that the trial court stated again i think this is the nd statement that the trial court made that i told the court that there be two key statements here this is the nd one the judge said this court has taken the opportunity to listen to the testimony the parties and their witnesses in court it observe the nonverbal communication and consider their demeanor home and reasonable of their testimony and by of all collateral evidence in determining their credibility as well as the weight to be given to their evidence that the nd that the key things because in making this ruling that ultimately the husband did guest this residence to the marital est and that it was a gift and not something that he was forced to do the court is saying observing all of this this credibility determination is  here and clearly the husband's testimony on this issue was found by the trial court to carry less credibility than that of the wife so there was no overcoming that presumption a gift by clear convincing or unmistakable evidence in this particular case the trial judge did however count for very clear non marital contribution to the to the home that nineteen thousand eight hundred eighty eight dollars down payment and very clearly not marital the court was well able to determine that and in so determining think it can be supported that the court was weighing each and every factor as it related to whether this is merit or not marital and accounting for the pieces and parts of things that were marital versus not marital as it was able to sometimes as with the i e j t for some of the evidence is just so convoluted you can't separate those pieces because there's no clear evidence of it just says we believe that the trial court made the appropriate judgment here that all of the decisions rendered should be upheld and we're asking this court to uphold those so he does not mention aflac just like anything else we are left here speculating as to what he considered is not like this issue of the medical expenses a minor issue i mean he is treating for cancer and the expenses were a lot i mean they were just six hundred and thirty the other is that there is detail d exhibits in evidence the one was seven hundred and ninety two for the next year so it was a lot of money and here we are left the score and the attorneys are speculating as to what the consideration was on that issue it's not something we can just ignore  ok i had i think if the clerk reads the records that it is i mean as a tardis point to a specific thing but if all the evidence is looked at when you read the record and you read what the the house was a manifestation of the slow decline in a relationship and a failure of faith in the good intentions of both parties that i think that's probably accurate i mean clearly the wife admits that she loved him and when he was very sick he admits that everybody admits that they found it was like it was no way and she tried to get him to transfer the house and he would do it and so i think that you know the credibility issue is a problem i understand but i don't think that in reading the testimony and looking at what the judge said in fact he also says in on page two that the he that the mike lee considers it was a rash your there is no evidence any payments were made on that camera during the marriage the only evidence was a dispute about how the st camper got traded for the jayco came from my client's answers no doubt about that my client said his folks gave it to well i think at least once or more than once the only reason i bring up the title there was acquired during the marriage was because if he had to get to convert the non marital scamper into a marital