good afternoon your honor is presiding justice smith justice o'brian justice right evidence that a fair and equitable distribution can occur valuation of the parties largest nearly all asset is one of the three issues we would like to focus on during our limited time with you this afternoon the other two being the court's erroneous recognition of five standard there was a dispute in the breeze between us and our opposing counsel as to what the what the standard of review was and i think that your honors have answered that in the recent case saying that the standard of review it was in remarriage of the men which was recently decided don't both experts to be well qualified unlike what opposing counsel said at pages twelve and nineteen of their brief the court did not find that mary's expert mr crossman lack credibility not at all he found that both of those experts were localized to the top fifty percent restaurants within the the t v market and that location is critical according to mr cressman and having a proper evaluation mr majida said that he had north already for using that and i see a good things over the opportunity reports in the it and minute that none of them may have even been in illinois unlike with the opportunity reports that mr quest means used to normalize the figures he chose not to compare the stores by reason  as a function of what happened here is a function of the valuation of the method that both of the experts use here both of them use the income approach discounted cash flow method which is the method of valuation which was used her by both the experts and it's a method that and will continue to have broken it which it sees other franchise systems because it's brand recognition so by and by virtue of the fact that these are seventy pounds restaurants that are part of a very well known brand and that all of the experts agree that there would be continuing on sales well vision for what he wanted to do with the restaurant said quote the next several years now the media made so many hundred thousand dollars that's in addition to the projections for home to restaurant rebuil there's going to be eight hundred thousand dollars absolute you have that correct around or it was an additional eight hundred thousand dollars for that for those particular reinvestment on top of another three hundred thousand dollars for improvements to tell you which were not included in mr neal's document nor in the mitchell matter plus an additional one point three million difference for the rebels saying that they're in we'll take one hundred percent by a man saying and to have everything be paid off in the first year which is a typical of according to see it's a fifty fifty split with mcdonald's and it's a it's pro rated over a period of ten years there along with another one point three million dollar devaluation there was another the fact that mr mcgee to use a thirty percent discount rate for the because the valuation that impacts everything else you know if this valuation is incorrect that impacts the distribution of marital property because then you have more marital property based upon what mr  to increase that and marital property that needs to be redistributed and then we have the issue of mary's maintenance as well you know i know that i'm running short on time but i'd like to touch on the act before i sit down if i may because that's very important she is that perfect candidate for permanent residence and she was given maintenance which is a which has of course review in three years mary has no work skills she has no experience she has everything that all of the permanent maintenance recipients have in the and she impaired her employment skills during all of these years and she's now not given maintenance unlike the wife and enter a marriage of the right to have a law degree who had a publishing career she was given permanent maintenance in remarriage of nord the wife had sixty six thousand dollars in potential income from properties and she still was given permanent maintenance and in remarriage a brand and the wife worked as a schoolteacher and earned seventy five thousand dollars a year and still was given permanent maintenance durance counsel in his brief after two and a half years without possibility of extension a review and he states that was the only error he ignores the language in this and other cases about herman that make his being proper or the spouse is not employable or only employable at a low income which would result in a lifestyle deficit and that's what many hands here after taxes she has eleven thousand dollars a month to live on after having a lifestyle where she in there and enjoy the nice that was sixty two thousand dollars a month and spending and he still lives that way is set forth in her grief he still has exactly the same lifestyle he has two homes and he spends thirty thousand dollars a month on to keep his three hundred sixty three hundred sixty thousand dollars a year  one of the summer eight in one thousand nine hundred seventy and that one was three hundred fifty thousand dollars then there were two that were executed on the same day march twenty seventh one thousand nine hundred eighty eight one was for one hundred seventy three thousand and one was for twenty seven pounds and and i can i can reference them to you as t x twenty four a p s twenty four b n p x twenty seven a so those are the three promissory notes again no interest was required on any of those notes no payments were made in more than fifteen years and their demand notes were a demand has never been made when those people every year and then they could take it out if they wanted to and that within a certain amount of time or it went back into the process and it was it would stay in the trust and did the child but make it clear it was three you know that and appears that what the trial court did it is that misstatements about the evidence the official good afternoon f a q for taking your time today my name is david personnel that this was not that it was activity and there was testimony at trial that said that he had a very unique situation and that they were comforted by the fact that they knew about the trust and i won't say anything more about there are no credibility issues where mr cressman is twenty eleven they never happens you know that alone we know that's in the record he projected those to happen and they never happened that was almost a million dollars right there which devalued the a lot of these he talks opposing willing seller will do in the open market the fact that there is expenses rent one percent higher would mean if somebody came in to look at those opportunity reports and said hey i can make more money if i take those expenses down by four percent so that the value you get right then or by the fact that was in the big house and you have you have pictures of it in the appendix he lived there she lived in the little apartment over the garage until two months prior to time to trial she had really no opportunity to know what her expenses were she stated outright that she was using may be appreciate you considering this case and allowing us to talk to you today and that we talked about all of the things that we believe are injustices to marry and in some affirming the trial court here on this record and based upon what you know