that are supposed to be a lot different pieces of property depending on when they were acquired in this case the evidence that was before the trial  this case but a lot of cases where is a long marriage thirty some odd years the parties are disadvantaged if they didn't have an honorable property before the date of the marriage because you do have a problem with the presence of proof how away at the time so all of those terms interchangeably although i know legally speaking may have somewhat different connotations but the end result is the same because it goes towards whether or not this property is marital or not mira and i think there was d canadian property before the parties were married and that their property was improved there was a little bit of a dispute although i think the parties essentially agree that the part of the property was approved during the course of the marriage debts there was no evidence of what debts if any existed at the time i think if you follow the chain of the timing of the events appellants position is more plausible credible both parties are in the title to the drive of property attorney property there is no documentary evidence from the transaction of the sale of canadian property which would have been thirty years almost thirty years before the trial  with the presence of proof in evidence but it doesn't change the fact that you have to apply your common sense your understanding of how things work and with whatever evidence is in front of you try to come this substantial property based on the income that was generated by the response and it is it's pretty on have to do that he was the only one that made any type of substantial or significant contributions towards  years prior to that the evidence is on rebuttal from both parties testimony that he really didn't make him much money and he was off and on employees for periods of time as a family moved around from either state to state or country to country so this property in part because even though i find both of these people's testimony to be incredulous but it wasn't all the testimony it was certain parts of the testimony that he found difficult to believe one was the lead of documentary evidence which property put in her name on probably around eight or nine years later she put his name on it too was there all alone parties are u s citizens they were foreign born in the bush it was their second language the trial lasted almost three full days with only two witnesses came from where it was there was absolutely a total lack of documents including a lack of data it's on the cost of any of these properties dragos property for example the canadian property with an old guy in sun city the canadian property we have no documents on the purchase of the turkish property or how much it was for or any other kind of documents that were submitted by the property but again there's nothing to show how much that canadian property was sold for and was used to from the proceeds of except for the parties only different views of what happened with their money substantial amount of money and was responsible h h at trial in fact the trial record shows that the dead guy was only allowed to be used to ref to adequately or fully consider various pieces of testimony and evidence and brushed aside the will actually if you look at the trial for those oral pulling prior to the written judgment the trial court stated ok with regard to the canadian property the evidence that was introduced from both parties is that it was sold in the early eighty's anywhere from one to eighty one to nineteen eighty three both parties testified that dr oz was bought in or around distribution of the property as it is assuming everything else is fair or all is ok when there's no evidence of value and i think the cases say when this situation arises remit is appropriate because you can't it's just going to lead to more of these people are still married to each other from the financial perspective because these properties are in dispute not only here in again proceedings that are now for the score but in other countries