the species of common ownership at a time where section is filed media property acquired during the marriage but transferred by one of the parties before the filing of the dissolution of marriage into an annuity held in an believe that there was a long delay we should discovery almost immediately within thirty days or or shortly within thirty days of the filing of the dissolution action several months after  dollars and one sometime in nine hundred ninety seven for which he paid another four hundred some odd dollars so is that answered correct yes but he never filed for dissolution of marriage at that point  that makes clear that you can't transfer a property even if the sole reason you're transferring it is to deprive a spouse of what you would be calling your property as long as the transfer is real and that's what you really have to look for when a transfer is real and throughout this there's been statements that mean it's going to be getting insinuatingly on january first two thousand and ten and that's just not true and how is that any different in that era to him living will and there are cases like in remarriage and danny where there was a trust i am the daughter hand and interest in the trust but the interest was something that was at the sole discretion of the trustee who was this the wife's father and there in that situation the trial more value tha american cancer society and both of those trust were written to state the long time one of them the cascade trust is supposed to last a hundred years and the september trust just goes to waste until twenty one years after the that there were five markings on it not even including the motion in one and there were long arguments so there were hearings on that secondly the court made two findings one that the abilities were this issue is something that should come in before the court is whether or not it's marital property or in expectancy and if it's an expectancy you'd never have a third party complaint so that is the case law that the court is going on  when discovering was closing in february and the trial actually originally scheduled for january fourth but was pushed to march i think fourth i mean that that would have been totally prejudicial  so the court still had discretion to do what it wanted to do in terms of that case management on order and what it found was it was that counsel wasn't diligent and this inaccurate find well though ah i am not sure that she didn't have counsel on the other one is just not in the record on the transfer from the keeper it's just not in the record there's nothing in the record about that but it's my you know understanding asset because it was risky and it was such a problematic property that it got him out of foreclosure and that's why she transferred there were two discussions about that and mr piper talked about getting her at two million two hundred fifty two thousand three hundred sixteen dollars it also demonstrates that the annuity starting date for payment date is january first two thousand and ten is merely property and subject to equitable division by the court and that is exactly what did not occur in this case there never was an ethical division of marital property there's an element of common sense that has to be lived there has to be involved in every case and if you look at it in this case what you find is that in each instance where there was a valuable mural piece of property in each instance