the nd case of the united states versus hend district court judgments was vacated for determination of the parties property interests as of january th two thousand and fourteen and then determine what property is subject to the government's restitution order the court in reaching that final conclusion correctly noted that we look at wisconsin law to determine what are the rights to property and it also noted that we have marital property and then in a court situation which is certainly the and the collections are limited so it's got some real property law we've got basically everything acquired during the marriage except by gift or inheritance and things brought to the marriage everything is marital property marital property is owned five thousand and fifty dollars it's an undivided half interest in each item of your marital property so there were basically four types of property here number one  was the equipment that was in custom collision that was the criminal defendants business that was shut down by the f b i in the middle of two thousand and thirteen certainly we have no question that that equipment is not if for some reason there is an unequal distribution based on who earn what in terms of income tax refunds now we get to the income tax refund this is the st item of major contention  that we want brought up before the court again wisconsin is a mirror of property state income is income even if it's ill gotten and call it is still income under marital property in fact wisconsin losses that embezzlement income is in common need to be taxed if there is income and obviously this jet was shut down the middle of two thousand and thirteen any money that he earned after that date was not from the business that conducted the criminal enterprise that income is five thousand and fifty just as in a case where you have earner spouse and a homemaker spots the homemaker spouses entitle to fifty percent of that under wisconsin law it it's part of what marital property did and when it changed when wisconsin changed from common law to marital property determined it was in complete agreement with this analysis up until it got to the portion of its decision where it says well defendants wages were not returned legitimately we never had an ever denture rehearing on that there's no finding certainly there's some hearsay that's out there but defendant's wages were not turned legitimately after the date that his business was shut down by the f b i what else could it be because he was no longer conducting this criminal enterprise so the tax refunds are a five thousand and fifty dollars proposition and then we have a relocated his business that's not what happened in this case though the business location that agents was in was obtained with one hundred percent financing from a bank the fram rock that it happens was obtained with financing from the current frame rock manufacture the peat booth comes from the paint company with the promise that you keep buying their paints at their exorbitant prices in order to have that paint booth in your property this is not a continuation of the criminal defendants business this was time a one half interest in the shares in the membership interest of ages auto body that's what was the property interest on that date but the district court said no that business was created with fraudulent flops well let's assume that it was let's assume that they stole equipment that was kovacs credit unions collateral that they defrauded the international which provided the funding to buy the business at best that would create a constructive trust for constructive lean in favor of those two financial institutions it doesn't do anything to create a bigger fund with which the criminal defendant could pay his criminal restitution so that the argument that this is just  katherine a katherine created this business but she doesn't run it her son austin is the main person at the time it was created he was a minor and it was created because she wanted him to have this last little time with his dad learning the ropes and subsequent to that point that you are the manager that manage the business so she's not a wrench turner has not if there were these criminal activities the crime of the crime for which she was charged it's her allegation with this hearsay documentation that these assets were acquired by defrauding others and even if that were true that these assets were rid of courted by defrauding others the remedy is people which is not the insurance companies that had been taken by the criminal defendant scheme and with the permission of personal questions right now all reserve the rest of my time through the custom collusion assets and through the misrepresentation to the bank international bank of am hers there is no question in the evidence that the united states provided that he was able to earn wages because of his fraud the business was purchased in june of two thousand and seven his crime scheme started in may of two thousand and seven and continued until he was for over two million two hundred thousand dollars of business loans and that was just one financial institution that they would money to this business would have shut down years before it was not successful but for his stealing that money and he didn't even steal enough of it to really sustain it then they took the assets like the vehicles the bank account and transfer that over frame rack and other equipment that appellant's counsel just mention is those were assets of custom collusion they were what she did was she went in before katherine had a tree financed that with the institutions that owned that property so what the district court did correctly was conclude that this business a j is could not exist but for the seed money from custom collusion and the the defendant's fraud and she  never presented any evidence financially showing that there was any other source of money it would be almost impossible to refuse the bank records or her you know discussions with the bank and things like that  you know we are at a loss as to what evidence there would be that she somehow earned the interest under the wisconsin statutes you need to irk crew a legal an equitable interest under the wisconsin statutes for example when they look at tracing marital property when couples get reports they look at has money been exchanged has a something of value been exchanged nothing was exchanged here was stolen and the victim should be entitled to get their assets were pledged as collateral at several different banks for that several december different loans so when they went to the international bank amhurst and presented it was a it's in the exhibits in asset list and said we own torrie free and clear can we get this loan to buy a j c it was only after the loan was granted that the president of international bank of ampersand this letter is in the record as well which pomeroy wrote them and said hey you've misrepresented that you only use assets free and clear you don't and we're cutting off your line of credit at because they had a lot of credit in addition to the loan so that was the only way they would have gotten financing to even purchase james had they gone in and said because jack kennedy said i'm going to prison i don't only made this free and clear it's pledged as collateral you it's clear from the president's letter of the bank that they would not have gotten loan to purchase and regarding the to income tax refund you know the wages were made possible by him stealing the money in for through the fraud getting the insurance proceeds in the positing it into their business bank accounts and then paying himself a wage the victim should be able to get their wages that money back from his wages the district court was very careful in making sure that she got half of her wages in making sure that she received half of the retirement i mean it isn't as though the district court gave everything to the victims in this case the judge was very careful to use follow scon decipher you know what interests she had earned in the crude a legal equitable interest in a percent of the statutes the court is not clearly air and finding that the facts supported that on january t counsel didn't address the day just in passing but i just want to mention it because it's in his brief the appellant also received due process through these proceedings the question from the very st briefing schedule we received was what interest did appellant have in the assets and so they had multiple chances throughout she had to testify in a deposition there was a reset and seeing hearing that they had me in an appearance in and file the pleading that they didn't appear on even in all of the briefing they never make a showing like hey this is let me show you a chart of the clean money and the clean money was plenty to sustain this business if she hadn't been able to make that showing she would have because she did present evidence when tools were owned by someone else like her son or or the manager of that business she presented evidence to show hey they  clean interest in this they purchased these things themselves were guarding her home should she presented evidence that her which we didn't try to take but she presented evidence which she needed to that said hey my dad gave me the  downpayment for this home so where she's been able to show that she had a legitimate interesting she's received that from the district she can't complain just because and this narrow instance where the wages were paid for and the business was the seed money for the business was from the fraud that she didn't get to process the court haven't for the questions  thank you thank you in terms of presenting evidence we incorporated the entire lengthy affidavit with each individual property i don't know that age is cool and as part of the record and where it came from that was all before the district court and none of that mattered that's the evidence that we presented the council says there was no credible evidence we didn't have a chance to appear in front of the court and have her judge the credibility of what was out there she talks about the letter from which pomeroy the president of the bank when he terminated the line of credit that had been granted to a j case he would have been a good witness for us had we been able to cross examine him it's it and even if what they say is correct that this was all created because of fraud on they're the ones that would have the right to this construct of trust or some kind of a equitable claim to those assets the burden seems to have been flipped because when we look at what property interests existed on that january date in two thousand and fourteen it would be the property interests of john and katherine hendricks as of that date the property interests would have been the ownership of of a chase had there ben a crime there might have been a constructive trust for those other and titties but certainly not for the criminal rest they shouldn't be entitled to some kind of a constructive trust because by two thousand and thirteen this thing had scaled down he was no longer being the rampant criminal that he had been it been caught and he was earning w two wages from which withholding was taken with holding he was earning them from what up until the day he was caught he was getting a pay check from custom collision which was the business that was conducting the fraud after he was caught i think that was in  june of two thousand and thirteen he went working for a wage for a j c after it opened and catherine hundreds remained working for a rd party employer who what was the funding for  in fact a j he's paid custom collisions sales taxes that were unpaid at that time so it put out way more than the government shows was being put in at its inception so in some your honour's wisconsin's america property state collections of debt can come from only the defendants the criminal defendants interest in property if he had no interest in property there's nothing collect from that would be the constructor trust because of any wrongdoing toward cofan to edge or from the international bank of ambers and then  mrs hendricks is entitle to her undivided half because it's a murder property state one more point any claim of unjust enrichment is improperly made because she