or in marital cases when trying to assign a value to read a property the fair market value is now he's fine to use in determining the value bias in this case personally  some sort of farm tools and other items what the court then it was a basically stock testimony of mrs oden which she testified that the costs of these items were things that she believed were replacement should now it she did not go to any options try to get what the fair market value in this united were in fact in one case and one of the items she testified that her son in law told her that he talked to somebody or read  and she didn't have access to the personal problems she she knew what they were she described those in her testimony as to exactly what those were she didn't know exactly how old some of the items were in fashion knowledge that cross related weather or at least listen to a description of the property to see what condition it was with the head and this is certainly did she have access to show i don't believe all of the items that we're talking about but certainly these are items that were in the possession of both parties for years and years of their marriage i don't know how familiar she actually was but i think that was scaffolding was at least forty years of age and this is owed based upon her testimony on what new scaffolding would cost again there's hearsay and sometimes double hearsay that was used to establish the value of these items and again it was not if this were marital property which the court determined that it was mr rhodes should be given a credit for half of that which the court determined was that was the value of the property which was which was missing he simply used the full amount  they alleged missing items and he we reduced it down by a couple of items that he found one up proved that mr owed should have been given a credit for half of that given the fact that it was marital property and pursuant to the terms of the judgment  case there have been periodic problems with compliance with court orders is this short notice this is the fifth petition asking that mr odum be held an there's going to be hearsay problem somewhere because how is the expert know it's bad it is because the expert other than probably the tool box that may still be in the back of mr rove's truck we're not going to have access to that property testified to was the best evidence available as to value was at the fair market value but she really didn't have the ability and i don't think today has delivered to produce for the trial court the fair market value of items that she doesn't have access to that they can buy bistro and it transcript we know that no two boxes there but this role as to the vast majority of  to say hey you didn't prevent produced competent evidence as to fair market value here say for the furiously when mr old put on his case at that hearing he used the same kind of evidence in the same kind calendar amounts each person shall from the contempt and we're done should the court should i file a petition to enforce the the order yes that would have been impossible croce what did the auction but yes so it was a substantial auction so from our perspective the burden of proof is on the appellant to show abused its discretion and i possibly be determined under the circumstances and under that set of facts the court did not abuse is discretion and its decision should be withheld felt by this court i would ask the court to do so they pay for it in a previous order and i understand and i think it's very close under the circumstances because it does have a little bit of a  sir but i still think it's worse and again i think part of the problem is the word indeed order itself that could have made this a lot older maybe it would have meant we were leaving here today your even the opinion of somebody else but our position is that mrs o did not do a very good john in trying to establish what the fair market value was actually acknowledge this is replacement cost this is not fair market value i did go to one o it was never really established where or who had this property and some of it as far as the justice pointed out is that it was very minor compared to the pic taken items that were produced for auction so it's not as if mr lewis somehow ordered this property to you for the value of it they have testimony was you know i don't know where it is or it was sold with this piece of property so