believe ended up creating a and equitable distribution of property with regard to the issue of the savings account reimbursed that is the one the one week that mr were to pass on his side on his side of the aisle you're on and with regard to that what you did was  made the contribution he and his testimony was that he intended to live his days out there i don't think that he ever intended to get divorced us eighty eight years old when he was  where there is the exchange between counsel and my client asked whether or not he intended to make it yeah i think it's clear that what mr works was indicating what he loved his wife and he was intending to  reimbursed he wasn't doing any he was acting as a as a good husband and he never did anything to force her to put his name on the property he was acting as as a spouse to ask with no that the equity in the home is gone up when you have a dining room closed which is it is a question of reimbursement and it's a question of reimbursement by the marital state not the not maryland state and there's no question that the marital we're not saying his non marital a statement of fact you were saying that the marital estate made a contribution because he had comingled his monies that he received from his parents into his bank account which was a marital bank account because he comingled everything and he and both parties testified that he put twenty thousand dollars into the home and then he put twenty thousand people twenty thousand dollars into or not a marital home and that the twenty thousand dollars that he used to put on them to build the back room to build the dining room when you had a bathroom a dining room a concrete driveway the other home improvements are things that that those are you on a home that i don't know my right and what are you even what add value those to his wife is my as your name not on the house and i don't think mr work and his testimony still indicated that you weren't getting the whole works and i think that's part of the problem was that was she didn't provide any of the necessary information that would have been required her etc to say that she did she did not know where she received her funds from and had the d n a case it would have been required for her to demonstrate and to trace that and to show something other than what she provided and in that case the court indicated with several bank account that the petitioner in that case had to demonstrate here convincing and permanent evidence that the wife needed to show x y z where she received the money and how she got the money into the mountains she could which mr wertz had access to and there was no and there was no explanation given to where this money came from or how it although there was that questions were asked the questions were never answers to where the money came from o you your trial they were asked that trial of mis words and it's actually an the transcript at one point where she received the money and how she received the money and i don't want to i do not want to misquote the answer because there were several points where she was being asked about her bank accounts at one point she did say i don't remember where i got the money ninety's in the main record so that would not be on a point where i would argue that either myself or counsel failed to try to get a hold of the bank records past a certain point because we've both piles on that issue with regard to both accounts for all the accounts of the parties with regard to the final account and that account would be the marital checking account held by miss words that would be her checking account and being in once you for that she held that checking account was merely in the judgment dissolution of marriage awarded to miss we are of the opinion that this account should have been divided more evenly and between the parties now the argument of counsel and there is a st and i don't disagree with the case that no you do not have to have it and even division of property and the dissolution of marriage what we have here when you look at the distribution of  case is that there is very there are very few assets in this case you have two elderly people they're both retired and therefore when you have two elderly people who are both retired and fortunate and there's very little to go around and you have one retirement account which is miss where i am are out that has to be divided and it was divided by a court which again which is asked why there are only there are very few things being appealed in this case however if the reimbursement on the marital residence if the deal with savings bank one or two nine which should have been would be a more equitable distribution because mr wertz receives grow one gross distribution made and at the very beginning during temporary  addition to a thousand dollars which was supposed to be his portion of the marital property which is thirty two years of accumulation of personal property that was left and when one looks at that distribution it's argument that that's not an equitable distribution in these three pieces of property the morning may place court will come cheap there are a few things that i would like to address with counsel's arguments before the court today the first thing is regarding the savings account for to what savings bank clear and convincing evidence can be admissions or omissions by the other party that the property is not marable or not of the marriage the evidence that the trial court was please identify all property of the marriage mr wertz the not identified to deal with savings bank account as property that he believed was of the marriage that omission was clear and convincing evidence for the argument was going to be made by mr wertz that i wasn't even aware of that account then he should have brought forth evidence of ms works in a rocket or responses and show that she failed to introduce that but we don't have any kind of evidence about the record you're not account that was properly decided by the trial court based on clear and convincing evidence if if a party is not going to identify a property of the marriage then you could just  discovering and you could just surprise people with arguments that something you that you thought going into trial was undisputed non marital property now counselor or the other party notifies you the day of trial that they were no longer conceding or believing that this is not marital property and you need to go out and prove that it is not marital property through clear and convincing evidence to me that's that's not fair why would you prepare a portion of a trial and devote a great amount of expenses and resources to determining an issue a fact that was unspirited prior to the day of trial so that omission by mr wertz was enough for the trial court and that is clear and convincing evidence  as to the issue of the home mr worth was given the opportunity to deny that that was a gift to his spouse he did not make an affirmative denial that he considered that a gift he said i love my wife and that was something that i wanted to do to me when you're given the opportunity to deny that that was a gift and you failed to deny that that's a gift you're admitting that that is a gift to your wife it's pretty simple  mr wertz response was powerful evidence for the court to determine that that was a gift and there is no need for any reimbursement to the marital estate and this is the first time today that i've  heard from the respondent that the reimbursement should be if any if it was determined that that was not a good this is the first time i've heard that that reimbursement should be to the marital state at trial there was no evidence really presented as to which the state contributed toward that twenty thousand dollar gift to the house so i don't believe that the respondent has met his burden to show by by retracing the farm's by showing the records from bank accounts which estates going to be reimbursed the other the other their other evidence that supported that this was a gift was obviously the testimony of the respondent son the respondent son questioned and off question counsel about this why would you go ahead and contribute this amount of money to the house when you're not names not on the title to the house that is further evidence that this was a gift i really don't have anything else to add in support of my brief i think that behalf of our client on a misunderstanding of the definition of marilyn not with regard to the argument made on it again with regard to the question of the gifts and  regard to a home and at first blush it appears that this case it would fall into the category of being a classic snow case in my i got what he  should just walk away i would argue that my client all them to first part of snow analysis and actually he should receive the reimbursement under the marital portion which is why i should receive reimbursement for the mortgage payments that were made he did receive it would be like rent you receive the adrenalin back home for thirty two years absolutely we're not asked that and we're not asking for reimbursement on the other side of the snow case or that the part where the reimbursement was huge that part reimbursement was denied us because a mortgage payment however in that case