was that the judge made reference to his order november three and i could not find in the transcript a complete agreement so i looked at that and i thought and i was house but when i first looked at it the order that i was reading from judge payne says there's an agreement but the transcript that say that there was no so that made base first got parties agree on some aspects of few aspects of the relief that were green but it doesn't resolve the issue of that house well you know it in and therefore when i looked at that i thought well we don't have a ruling up on the largest asset the party itself which was the house we don't we don't know who gets what out of the house because the agreement was incomplete the agreement was simply that it was going to be sold there was no disposition of the proceeds that was by agreement so we have all these proceeds out there what are my client bought it or some third party audit we still have all these procedures that have not been allocated by the trial judge to anybody or the other issues that go along with that so that was the first thing that struck struck me was ok well what was most out of the house now at the time i came to that thought i had not seen the written judgment my client or for a third party and we didn't know where those funds were going to go originally under judge james order so you know no we do yeah because there's a written judgment that was in her thirty days later yeah i mean we do know now but at the time we didn't know where those funds were going so yes there's eighteen thousand hour difference so we say you know everything else is even he added eight hundred thousand put but where did the house go under his original order  difficult is because in order to determine the maintenance award you're supposed to look at the the property division first at the trial level and then then you decide maintenance based upon the profit after you look at the property division that's why it's important to realize the sequence of what happened in this case because at the time judge payne entered that two thousand month maintenance order if there was no allocation of where the house proceeds with mr hopper and requested seventy five percent of the assets in lieu of maintenance mr geisler head had suggested there should be no maintenance and suggested that the house should be divided  there was no division of the house either the seventy five percent or the fifty percent it was just of the soul and yet there was a few thousand dollars a month maintenance for energy and so that's it at least in my reading of the transcripts i wasn't there but my reading friends transcripts that's the way i see this scenario set up and so how can you base maintenance a war if you don't know where the properties that's one of the real problems now and or my client was to buy it based on an appraisal amount but the actual disposition of the monies from that was not agreed upon there is no agreement s that mr kopp was requesting seventy five percent my part of my client's attorney at the time a reimbursement for the for the repairs that he was point to make and then he was asking for fifty percent of that balance not fifty percent of the gross but fifty percent of the balance after he asking for seventy five percent of the gross net excuse me the gross sales proces of the house before those kinds of reimbursements to her husband so i no i don't believe there was ever a full agreement stated to the court at any time over the house and so when you read that transcript and you look at his orders they just don't match i mean that's that's the problem that cost us and so if if that doesn't match other things that the transcript is unclear i can't well as there were zero in the workforce for the first twenty years sic transcript is unclear i wasn't fair i don't know it just it just says that if my reading of the transcript was simply thousand and five the time that the hearing she she will actually earn more money after this award than my client my client if you take that two thousand a month twenty four thousand off of his earnings and you add that twenty four thousand to her earnings she earns more on a yearly basis than he does on the yearly basis based upon her two thousand and eight thousand nine thousand was on clothes or or a minute these terms no evidence of anything that she did or they did as a family unit outside of the fact that they live frugally and i know it's been suggested  court that she said she was frugal after they separated but she actually said they were frugal before they separated this was a frugal family who did nothing for the reparative please outside though to work from home and so  as far as evidence of lifestyle she's meeting the ever built lifestyle based on her own in that's in the record there is no evidence of any lifestyle that she's that she has that she's not able to meet with her own so the very basis of the order of maintenance i think the subject question but it's particularly becomes important when you don't know what he just pain was thinking when he hadn't divided up the house yet  scenario things happen so i was concerned that that original order was the final order yeah i think this court could have a look at it as they final work but then all the thirtieth day or the last and then we get into the property issues that i've raised and the property issue basically is the with everything being divided equally why are we paying eighteen thousand dollars in additional to buy everything equally on the well we what we have suggested if you look at our exhibits i think i referenced each of the exhibits in my week if you look at our exhibits our exhibits add up to the parties of getting pretty much  thousand dollars so obviously there is an issue that the trial court to make a decision on and then the third issue and i see my time's getting close third issue is the attorney's fees there is no  what we really think is that the case ought to be sent back her either a new trial and if you don't outline right versus i don't have anything else well he approved the judgment is to form with all of that language in there and i take it from that that he was in total agreement with so the a two attorneys understood what it was involved i don't think there's any mystery about what the judge  but you know i mean when i look at judge payne's order what he did and if you can look at a retirement fund you can look at the money on deposit you can look at every thing and he divided it down the middle with the exception of that property issue that we came up with and by the way i think thousand yes by the way you look at those numbers and i would like to just talk about that here very briefly i want this  he got to keep that buy to change order so he's a bonus there he harley davidson motorcycle there were several appraisals it was free and clear purchased with marianne sabs it was worth over eight thousand minimum to up to  thousand down he also paid as people by the name of forbes another about twenty five hundred people three thousand dollars worth of improvements and you if you didn't have an appraisal for picked we know what he paid for we know we put into it he's the at least by that fifty five hundred dollars up on what he put into that home life insurance policy it's not marital but it was purchased right before the marriage this was a twenty seven year marriage and the payments on it were mates rocked the marriage and the cash value in it which was given to him was a pound sixteen thousand dollars and he could not tell us the transcript says what the thing was worth when they got married he was a really hundred more than one machine slashed so he gives are eighteen thousand dollars even today we a little shy probably so he did award five thousand dollars in attorney's fees which by the way can be part of a property settlement agree entire time she was part time from somewhere ninety three i believe is where she really took my course it was before ninety three he she was going to school and that's where she earned her a bachelor of science degree to become a registered nurse and the cares to take care of i can only work part time so i still don't while he advanced his career and by the way in the first year that you work full time which we reference and and if you look at the exhibits by the way and i know u briefly about what are warnings work my recollection is you will find the zero seven zero eight nine and ten tax returns i don't have specifically on my mind what are w two form short for zero seven zero eight but i know that it will stand in two thousand and ten that he thought his writings in the you of a divorce would be as good as they were the year before ninety four thousand and fifty four sixty nine or a little bit there now that doesn't include the so when you when you look at this case you really have to look at what you have and again while benefits are not income by golly they do to further those expenses on the other side of the and so when you say that you get five hundred sixty bets or mine it pays well for his truck it pays for it yes lein it pays for his insurance he had a credit card bill he said he was running over a thousand a month he was about fifty dollars shy of paying all those types of expenses with just the expense money now an actual receipt from his employer that doesn't include a cell phone that was free costing him previously one hundred twenty five a month so add those together if you add in the benefits but i think it definitely reasonable and definitely based upon a division of assets when you do that and when you order a property settlement agreement you order make this issue doesn't simply come down to can you pay your own attorney's what he ate i figure before that it was a fraction of it and in addition doesn't take into account the almost twenty thousand dollars nontaxable benefits he gets from his employer but the people reimbursement for the cellphone or the expenses that he gets reimbursed for those matters which you believe the court exercise of its discretion reconsider signing but i cited some cases in which both of those issues while not considered per se income were considered by the court as a benefit because they reduced the expenses that expenses on one side income on the other they reduce almost any expenses and should be considered in making that a war well maybe she didn't have those expenses back that he has them and she doesn't she had a co payment your honor he had a truck payment he had insurance payments and really there's no sort of he has worked well i don't know that she needs use  his is gone is buried somewhat because he does get a drop but he also gets the bonus of the record will tell you that the bonuses are based upon business performances business location performance  it's probably no surprise to anybody in this room but we had a recession in two thousand and eight and when you're in the electric business and surprising supplying contractors and others with electrical parts your business is down so if i'm looking at i would think that it would not be a he had zero seven was eighty two thousand to seventy eight zero zero zero eight ninety seven four fifty four zero nine and ninety four eight fifty four so you're seeing a pretty much of a of a pattern here and we're looking at some pretty bad years right there so i would expect that is income would be going up yes well first you can only work so much over time well i guess that some of us from work seventy hours a week but there were a nurse working twelve hour shifts it gets a little tough when you get up to fifty years old which is right about where she was time of the divorce so i don't think her income is going to go or very much much beyond what it is if that if that answers your question yes they didn't put it in his order things for reimbursement for repairs or money spent  mortgage payments and things like that i presume from being in corpore for about forty years now next month it'll be forty years when a judge doesn't and those after those orders they're just behind him you don't have to every time somebody makes a little request come in find out about a written order you see any motion to set that aside you see any any motion to modify it or change it to say this is not in conformance with judge change or no motion was  a motion to reconsider but not to say that the judgment was wrong and i'm representing this guy now and i know it's wrong and we want to set it aside so i think you know like it should be a rather important issue when we deal with it and by the way my understanding of the law is when you have a written order and if maybe if different from the from the docket entry the written order control so on that's ultimately approved by the parties and signed by the judge but i think the terms of that are the controlling terms only questions of frank makes is did they know at the time that he divided property ever to make that shorter that there was going to be a division of fifty fifty with respect to the property and i my answer to that a yes and again i know judge segment as she has said you implied and i you know if i'd known i was going to be standing here when i made that statement i would have been a lot clearer on that that the the other thing that his employer just doesn't give away money the reason he gets reimbursed expenses because so he has mileage comparable to what she might have this mileage going to and from work he gets only seventy five percent his miles reimbursed the others presumably the employer is paying those because he's driving those on behalf of the employer i don't think his employer simply with all of its locations around picks one guy and payer and says we're going to give you extra money i don't think that's realistic common sense i think what the employer does says ok these are realistic business expenses we're going to reimburse them to the to the extent that he's reimbursed expenses that cuts down on his expenses that doesn't give him the fissionable and it shouldn't it should not come into play in this setting the cell phone is something that of course it's a business cell phone and so the employer pays the business sell the fact that their employees get business cell phones for them to use in their business it is helps them in the extent that it allows them to do their business but i don't know that that it should you should tribute that him outside of his business and say that it helps him outside of his business i don't know the record is unclear how many cell phones he might have i don't  the property issues mr howard went through everything but he didn't lose all of the personal property or the house my client left the house and he left with virtually nothing other than his clothes in the final award but she got all the other stuff so it's it's fun to add up what my client got and just not in what his client got and say there was a big discrepancy but if you go back and add both then you