apartment in columbia illinois eight and the white continued to reside in the marital residence and husband did not file a petition for dissolution of marriage until two thousand and ten and on october t income was twelve thousand four hundred and thirty three dollars a month with a net income of eight thousand two hundred and sixty six dollars a month on the other hand the shelley thing come was two thousand two hundred and seventy eight dollars a month gross and four hundred and twenty dollars six cents per month a difference of almost seven thousand eight hundred dollars between the parties at that time a judgment was entered into lumber of two net income was increased to three thousand four hundred and twenty dollars per month at that time although the current statute spent more than five hundred and four of that i am d m a was not in place shelly was earning the time that the petition and handsomer filed the court had ordered the parties to mit in memory in the law and to argue the issue of partner proof in her view of maintenance proceedings when both counsel and i don't believe he could have made that signing for the following reasons mr parker had been employed for forty one years through cameron at the time of his retirement contrary to two and net of two thousand and thirteen at that time shelley is net income on july th two thousand and seventeen was forty six percent of the net and come apart and he  crux of this issue and what i claim to be most important is when you look at the ballot you a property that the parties cat at the time of this trial shelly had equity it adds in excess  of the party in consideration for that income of being slightly higher than shelly i disagree with the abilene statement that you cannot include shelly's business checking account as an asset which had thirteen thousand three hundred and forty three for that reason shelly was it doing business as hairstylist in doing business as that's that's shelly shelly is that business she files a tax attorney or individual tax return it not a corporation she has access to all those items any income the business makes and come to shelly additionally she's already accounted for those business business expenses and her schedule c on her tax return as well as in her financial a guest slightly under five hundred thousand dollars has to be a significant consideration of the or i do believe that this case is most like e and so yes the court found that he voluntarily retired but there is no case law and i haven't even been fact able to plan a case file that someone isn't entitle to retire i don't i haven't been able to find the rule of law that there's a specific retirement age and then again i disagree with the court finding that he retired as early as retirement age because as i indicated or mr parker testified that the i v could have required the court had found that he had been appropriately or tired or to retire early i do think the court has to make some finding out what his income and in this case the court didn't if you any income savvy they basically said ok well we're going to say you shouldn't continue to pay three thousand dollars well the doctor what she's getting from his pension and he has to pay the difference but there is no basis there is as to the income finding of either parties in this order as to why pay one of the things that i really want to hit on as well is the standard of living established during the marriage for these parties through out the divorce or two thousand and eleven until two thousand and seventeen shelley continue minutely at the time of trial he had moved to a cabin in arkansas and he testified that he was using space heaters that the washing machine was out he was living a fairly simple life but we were looking at his ever living during th her car of hotel and she was living not personal loans and help from family and friends and the kids i can see why the court would make a finding that husband still had an obligation to pay like was homeless that's not anywhere near the that case here i do think beyond hope when it is is somewhat more applicable and even in that piece the court made a finding that the husband had been fired for cause this is the case where he was a police officer and he had not  policy of the department and even though he was fired for cause the court did not make a finding that was a bad date reduction in income the court also  appellant overarching argument in in the appeal as at the trial court abused its discretion by modifying his nation's obligation upon argument basically the trial court erred by granting him the really specific relief that he requested record it is not mandatory for a trial court to make explicit findings the record here clearly establishes the need for continued maintenance the parties were married for thirty years shelley was eighteen at the time of the marriage she was primarily responsible during the marriage for raising the children and keeping the home and she held no other employment before the marriage during the marriage or even after the marriage other than cutting hair during the marriage that was in in the actual marital home where she was raising the children and he was able to advance in his career during the part marriage and develop significant experience gills and knowledge which he testify to to increase his income each year which he specifically also testify that he was able to do you want maintaining the same number of hours i work in the same number of hours i had day during the marriage and by reducing his physical requirements through the numerous accommodations that he testified in her inmate for him the appellant argued that there was agreement that his income was decreasing before he retired that's completely untrue and no where in our previous state that in fact we actually state the opposite in two thousand and eleven when the parties were divorced  gross income from amerind was one hundred and fifty thousand in two thousand and fifteen in two thousand and sixteen his income his gross income was one hundred and seventy seven and almost two hundred and seventy eight marriage is grow average gross income of the last two full years of working before he elected to voluntarily retire was for over fourteen thousand dollars per month by electing to retire his he voluntarily reduced his income by almost seventy percent to about forty four one hundred dollars per month and i'm curious in terms of the argument with regard to his choice to retire i mean i understand there's this argument when someone voluntarily leaves a job for a lower paying job or for you know something that ca be fired from a job but is is the argument that he retired at sixty two as opposed to waiting until he was sixty seven would we have the same argument being presented if he had wai he was sixty seven dollars to retire i probably can't i can't completely answer that your are because i think it would depend on the circumstances but i would say that sixty two is further retirement benefits had he continued to work at him rent a view of if we take my question a little bit further if it's sixty seven you choose to retire and let's say you you reduce your income by more than half because of your retirement you could also choose not to retire at sixty seven dollars and you burning that to the present more low are we suggesting the anytime someone is divorced they can never retire with being subject new to pay maintenance as though they were fully employed prior to retirement no your honor i'm not i'm not suggesting that at all i think if you look at the specific acts in this case  wanted or expected to have a maintenance obligation to his wife or worry about supporting her providing any support to her again and in looking at his halliday the circumstances even aside from that mr  was earning a substantial income that again he was able to do so with being accommodated for all his physical limitations he was earning substantially more than he had been previously working the exact same number of hours moving into a supervisory role we're not hearing though what i keep hearing those that even though you're legally able to retire you've worked forty one years at a job and you're in you're entitled to retire any time between sixty two and sixty seven if you're earning a good income and you don't have a physical limitation the keeps you from earning it you have to keep working if you're divorced in order to maintenance you don't necessarily have to keep working your honor but if you are under a maintenance obligation you pay five years in maintenance for a thirty year marriage then you are going to agree with you i understand that part fully so a five year deal so if you would have waited until he was sixty seven dollars it would have given her you know five more years he would have been ten years in would have made a difference well the thing is and i guess this is the point i want to make as well he c retire at he can choose to retire at any point but then asking the court for that to reduce his maintenance obligation the inverse of your argument would be true in that case a party under a maintenance obligation could choose to retire worry about paying this this maintenance to his wife you no longer want to worry about no one wanted to have to even think about her or her expenses or anything along those lines and that he had decided five years was it was all he was going to pay i think demonstrates more so that the retirement he chose to retire he didn't care about his maintenance obligation he stopped paying it actually and you know latterly without a court order and again he can retire but he's still responsible for the full obligation that he had i know that counsel brought out that there was no basis for the court's modified maintenance award but it's actually that was the new amount that he was ordered that was the new amount that he was ordered to pay and again the appellant did file a petition to terminate or in the alternative modify so the relief that was actually granted to him was exactly what he had requested it was modified looking at the fact that like i said my client was receiving her share of his immigrant pension  and again this was discussed at length that are in our brief but miss writer did take significant steps to increase her income from that the time of the party's divorce she painted her instructors license briefly state that again the assets as represented by the appellant are a misstatement mr parker actually has significantly or actually has more returns and the testimony all demonstrated that the that checking account is a business account used for business related expenses and miss writer showed that she incurred approximately fifty thousand dollars in business expenses that she testified were necessary for her to maintain her work in both two thousand and fifteen and then again in two thousand and sixteen  mr parker misstated that either party has any liabilities it's actually him that is a have any debts miss ranker has a vehicle has over thirty four thousand dollars in debt the they knew it was also ms ali you know if my client were to choose to cash that out she'd only have about two thousand the actual assets show that mr parker has five hundred and sixty three thousand dollars in assets while miss record has only about five hundred and fifty five dollars even if though she were to have more in assets she's not she's not required to impair her capital to generate income to pay her monthly expenses as far as that the provide her salon services to rent salon space and buy another residence would actually end up costing her more so that's why she maintained the merrill residence she did not testify to any extravagant trips or anything wedding he'd take in multiple trips to portland his standard or his standard of living and probably increased actually as our client was just struggling to maintain what she had during the marriage that he voluntarily became unemployed is attending to a of a to support obligation or he has to has a reasonably failed to take on employment opportunity in this case mr parker has demonstrate straight at all three you chose to retire in middle the proceedings before trial before the court ruled he testified that he only wanted and expected the court the court find these things as is your position or is this the courts did find that mr parker had voluntarily become unemployed he provided no medical evidence no medical testimony no documentation from him him that he was forced to retire and he actually testified that again aymer had made numerous accommodations for him to ensure that he would maintain his license and he would be able to work without having to do any of the physical activities that he testified he couldn't do any more because of these alleged these alleged health conditions so for those reasons your honor and the reasons outlined further in our brief we are asking that the judgment of the  account in the five years sense that of course which is not too short of the three thousand dollars a month that she was receiving from mr parker with regards to  until your spouse decides that they don't want me to ever former is that they don't need any more and i think that that's what the court failed to make a finding to the court did make a finding that he found that sixty i was the appropriate retirement age i could not find any case or any basis at the core has stated that there is an appropriate retirement age for every single case of every single circumstance so i don't know why