pursuant to the court order and will county in early two thousand and six the company was formed by the name of correct a letter from the late two thousand and six the money that was previously held by the court was distributed over two thousand and nine the court correctly stated that mr erlich and i did not have a responsibility to invest in this correct electric where some of his former business partner business partners as well as paranormal all work together to establish his company the court said specifically did he have to do this and the answer was no he did not have the responsibility to invest in a company that was in its initial stages and with just one forming itself during the period of the important fact there that was on the street to the trial is that he did not have the means in which to invest in this company because the money that he would have used was being held in trust although it said that he didn't have an obligation the court leader said that  i would say conjecture i don't leave her with any evidence to the contrary it shows because there was no assumptions or no evidence that even if you just look our had the ability to invest in the corporation that he would have been the president she was only one of eight shareholders and there was no evidence to show will any of these other shareholders would have thought of mr looked in our queen and place of her i mean he was making fifty thousand dollars a month to an early retirement and started because not for profit organisation retired at fifty something was making that five thousand as a consultant essentially to train his excessive went from fifty thousand to five thousand on early retire here mr lifton on the show you that i mean the reason i'm asking all just to live an hour on average for the five years previous to the court make a decision here with aberdeen seventy four thousand dollars a year his current income of the time that he at the decision was seventy one thousand there was invested in the present there was nothing there or that he would have made one point i guess were the obligations that is what we're saying here for the benefit of the opportunity presents itself to new visual in this room within our position where is it in the no thanks i'm good here he was an older rule over the company and chose not to then become an owner of another company for for all sorts of reasons and i don't think again the law in future that obligation on him to every time he sees an opportunity that he has to try to move differently than the money that mrs lippett i received as a result of the sale of cipher a letter that she had an obligation to go and seek opportunities there was no guarantees or i think that was another assumption that that somehow this company was going to be an ongoing concern and very successful speculative the best at that period of time and i think quite frankly the difference between these two cases and the cases marker is that the marriage state was deprived of anything that it didn't already have it wasn't like he was making the fifty thousand one down to five and of course you know no you're not going to get away with it he was making seventy years he still naked said unusual he didn't do was invest in the company because he didn't have the means to be he was told not to and most do that question and that answer was not objected to i mean i later continued and was asking questions like you you live with her you don't know what she makes you know you started this company blah blah blah down the road and after that there was another objection which was eventually sustained but the specific question and the specific answer that i cited in my supplemental stating the facts was not happen if he doesn't want to act to save it he didn't have any money to invest in that company when the company that he owned at the roman time gave two hundred seventy thousand dollars loan two hundred seventy thousand dollars to this new star i think is twenty and i think the discussion should end there but further he also says he didn't have any money to invest in the company yet knowledge is the loan the very money that is there more of us can invest in the compan people that invest in the company in this new company the company that he retained gave all the money to the new company that just looked normal chose not to invest in so that it could start out becoming operable and as capital calls came in h well to be completely frank with you your honor i was not involved in that case at that time in the kind of a weird twist of things i got involved in that case later when my father tired but presumably is it just a common sense divorce lawyer when you've got you know hundreds of thousands of dollars coming your way in a messy divorce case common sense would require that you ask the court to hold on to it to work something out or somebody decides they want some money and is to be completely free i'd that i believe is outside of the record in this case and i don't know the answer that question and i don't know if it's often happens you know people just would like to talk a little bit about the court's analysis in in specifically it's relied on the smith case which i think is entirely appropriate and i think that it's  it's pretty i mean it's obviously not four corners accurate but to be completely blind i think that the facts in this case are actually more compelling than the facts in the in the smith case in the case of john voluntarily retired and went from even fifty thousand dollars a year nine hundred seventy nine dollars to five thousand dollars a year and he significantly decreased his in town and he went off to live with his parents in a farm cause this is not this it happened he was making seventy since the work record like in two thousand and six program but prior to that i believe before tax returns in evidence his average income for the three years prior to the initiation any divorce proceeding either here in this county or in previous one and well his average income was one hundred twenty and so i do i do think there's a difference and the other thing is interesting to me  seems completely reasonable on the trial court to wonder and in fact in this decision i think he recited specific examples of things that he thought were little quirky one of them which is you know that she has running a business of this nature he gives her the money did you invest in it and then she draws a salary in what she brought to the table i think he said i don't you know i can't turn around but i think he found  mean i think there's a there's a there's a a large amount of circumstantial evidence of all the strange things that were happening and i think in this decision the throw were kind of went through them and i did more than happy to do it as well because and he was sending that information to mr looking now now that's to me significant circumstantial evidence of his motives and he said you know it was a mistake that i was unaware although he's employing this man right no candidacy testimony mostly i think that came when i started asking him some questions as to why the theater in that pursuit and so you know when i was asking questions initially he said i didn't do it because i couldn't do that and then when the thirty thousand dollars shows up on the same day that terrible kind of abuse and and all of this starts to come out and he gets a day to think about how i'm going to solve the thirty thousand dollars problem comes back the next day with an undisclosed no miss money too is hearing more and then i assume and some frustration said you know ask him direct questions to the general and he said i was advised not to do it in the court properly determine that you know that's ok you can do that but that's not the end of the story right now you've got this other analysis so why is he doing these things why are these benefits that you know he's living with this person and presumably you know sharing the benefits of her income and he finally gave it out but all of that i mean shows what he was trying to do he wanted to to receive the fruits of the benefit of this new corporation without having any ownership interest this is what he did he didn't hit him over the head with a hammer because he thought he was a bad guy he just said ok this is what he's done he's chosen not to take this opportunity yet it is obvious that he avails themselves of the fruits of this company and so i in time this transfer happens and we can come back well there's a couple problems with that i think the first is how would she ever know there's no possibility we're  get a notice in the mail there's been a transfer in a private company and we're never going to find out ok this second part is if that's what happen then all they have to do is never do it and they're still living in the same house and still have a hundred seventy thousand dollars in income and so that's perfect i got a lo then he's protected right because then he has the ability to say hey i got fired from my job my girlfriend kicked me out of the house i got to go find a new job and i can't pay them anymore so you get so he filed this petition to reduce maintenance on a substantial change this one was you were talking about the income tax returns are in there with respect to the salary naturally referring to the five years average up until that point was around the seventy four thousand in two thousand and three  salaries ninety three thousand two thousand and two was ninety nine thousand there were capital gains significant capital gains in a couple of years that were from the sale of property and things of that nature that was actually lost when you were one of these any of them having a fifty but nobody community say that there was anything to the contrary so the fact that he was assisting her in this opportunity her opportunity at that point in time again i don't see the the analogy to the two cases that we keep talking about i'm trying to say is that the law does not as i understand it and i would argue does not he could make an obligation on him to take every business opportunity that is that is out there that you know be gentleman had never worked overtime in ten years of marriage maybe seventy thousand dollars and all this and his boss is a listen if you want to work for more hours pay extra or you take this training program and you might be able to than me actually goes no thanks i'm pretty good here it doesn't take anything away from the marriage or his ability to pay like the two cases we're talking about that somebody who had an obligation said you're not going to tell me what to do and i think that was the more speech of the guys that no court's going to tell me what i have to pay and so