anyway nice point during the fall counsel for my client to break up during cross examination of this is because i got her to concede that the amount of support she was getting during again at your financial life particularly paragraph number five it was two thousand forty six dollars a month in expenses answer yes question and i think you told me that this is not the one the kind of lifestyle  the only thing he can get her to say that she can't buy or live the same way she could before as close she can't buy clothes like she's that's all he can get from her that's the only gift so i would submit your honour's of the evidence shows why i thought that it also showed that she listed you know that's the list of nothing for gas and oil and repairs nothing for real estate taxes nothing for any entertainment nothing for just two children which the adult child support she said i'm giving this is he gets more money if she's got no child living and that's just not that's not a valid basis for maintenance neither party asked for adult child she's considering for she just considering it there's no other person lou of him that contributes either contributes to the expenses or the dollars that he spends having a roommate mark is living at a much higher standard of living carol worse expenses are life and that to me that raises the question well what if she is living or say what if that's the way they always live why is that a basis for deviating from the law that says it based on standard during the marriage and then at the bottom when she goes after the judge goes through her calculations she says this takes into consideration the contribution to expenses from spotlight expenses based on the fact that some of those expenses are her for her benefit and i read that as she's not counting some of his expenses because he's spending it for the benefit of this girl  brief was in re the american magnus and that was a case that discussed that if the spouse wife in both of those cases has the ability to make more money and can't get a job and can't work that has to be calculated to the mean as you figure out what she could earn and then you give her the difference between washing is there was testimony at trial in this case that the sex was offered a promotion and she turned it down because she didn't want the extra stress she could make more money she has the ability to make more that is something that the last simply says has to be considered is that this little extra difference could be made up by her and specifically this is my client's non marital house when i got this case obviously i wasn't in the trial i read the record and i looked at all this and i said wow that i don't know how just a real mess and here you've got this piece of regular property that she's already living so she won't even have just swap with perfect and it didn't happen i don't so that was an error and we've asked for a couple of different things in the alternative one you could say ok she can keep the house that he gets before the operation but that's better for her and she doesn't  position the your claim took the trouble we're all right to say that question and if i were on the other side that's exactly what i was and my response is that there is testimony in the record that civically says some other evidence that suggests maybe that is correct seems to be what you're asking this risk of the trial judge to do it is just fine there because the trial judge didn't  just assumed that rather than going through the pointless for mamelodi and putting it in yeah that he thought there was a quick way i can respond i don't know why don't either but that was the concession by counsel than them let's go with that i just heard that it still did not change the church's line but then he said do you want me to be classified and he says no i don't really care doesn't matter and you leave it the way it is far as i'm concerned and what is it what is the they referred to this and in the reply that this award probably was part of the fifty eight forty two vision of merrill's state in favor carol i didn't know where he found that i made mention of america argument was then the memorandum of judgment of the solution of marriage is just mccarthy filed on june twenty first of last year that number does appear there are those numbers i think she said fifty percent forty two percent but if you look at it first see that that's my point though is that that's not what the law says law says maintenance is based on the standard of living this happens to be case where are exempt different standards of living i'm not aware of law that says it has  were before they were two people working together so this is kind of an unusual case doesn't happen very often and i can understand why as a practical matter in ninety percent of cases what you do is just split fifty fifty and that's the best you can do because you can't get both parties back there so this is not that case this is a case where evidence was presented to show two thousand dollars a month on top of what she made and if you also factor she could have taken a raise but  he did go through that and over what does it have any meaning or do we just forget that because there was an earlier statement that said yeah i got by on two thousand dollars a month well the meaning i got when i read that particular test