personal trial the first syria that we ask you to look at is the designation the maintenance that was awarded as you know in the main hall case the difference i guess is the shifting of the burden of proof circumstance but in this case i believe the standards the facts of the case make it qualified for permanent versus rehabilitated and not just let's just take a look at it because regardless of what happen with this circumstance with this i guess financial perfect storm what we have here is will he ever meet that standard which is will he ever be able to get enough education training or experience so that he would make a reasonable amount of money to where maintenance is never going to be needed and in this situation i don't think you can say that he does have a accounting degree bashers agree he didn't work it si yourself in accounting firms this is the guy can you really properly prepare a factory he's been out of accounting and really never really practiced it so he's totally going to have to be retrain he's going to be if he's really trying a company that would hire him that would say ok i have a fifty one year old person that i'm going to have to retain retool versus a recent graduate who's up on all of the nation which are the would but the question is why should we have to go do that and be i mean because it's obvious if any and we can go and exercise that legal right but i guess just to say that when you have facts in front of you were  and has operated a business that's been unsuccessful the fars news been unsuccessful for years and now we have a situation where we say ok you're trying to do one of two things i t you're not trained in current computer when you're not trained in the ability to walk in somewhere and say hey i can run your system i can be a trouble shooter i can be an i t guy because you can't he doesn't even know microsoft so what he knew was something that is antiquated now what he knew was years ago and yet he would have to go to l r s he estimated three six month programs i think you know maybe real realistic it may not but even then he walks in the same type of position fifty three by that and says hey i or me no experience and very little technical background so what we have is if he gets hired where does he get hired thirty five forty maybe fifty is last time that he worked in the i t it st john's importers laid off was fifty six thousand dollars whereas we have a person who the court found did is in the position that she is in with the claim because of the support that he allowed from the home front that assisted her in the career and she's a  you know and to her credit she his accomplice but over the years she has risen substantially have to claim they both salary wise and position wise and in part that is because of his actions at home so if we look at the marital financial partnership law as we look at it in illinois he helped her get to where she sat and under part fell he she just can't walk away too bad the marriage didn't work i'm financially going to walk away from my responsibility and do it she makes to eight his best case scenario training and retool fifty about sixty thousand you're never go bridge that gap in the lifestyle where one point of marriage length of marriage is fourteen year it's not the you know the typical case where you say permanent is somewhere around eighteen to twenty so we're or years shy of that but we have circumstances i mean do we have here terminate this case this is just sort of the where when there's unusual circumstances usually it's a case of somebody that has a mental illness or a physical illness or some debilitating situation that prevents them from actually going out and getting a job but in this type of situation here's history and who he is puts him into that category he's never going to get there he's not going to get halfway there he's always out and say ok i'm going out to whatever company and i'm going to take some courses to try and boost up my i didn't do it obviously that's something the court can take into account but even had you done that we're still left with the same thing and he is living in his mother's home inverter a far cry from what the marital home was rochester his family his friends his  she spends a level thousand dollars a year on clothing between her and the china she has disposable income that just relied and one of my arguments was the church relied on their exhibit disposing of in addition to that she gets now from my fine fifty one hundred dollars in support payments so when you put that together instead of having one hundred eighty thousand disposable one she and what i'm saying to this court is if you look at thirty three you can't just look at the bottom line of a hundred eight you have to do what i did which is say is the argos sued are those something that is legitimately workable or more of a put did you call it to the attention of the trial court after the order was over no i did well we have a this but you are wrong in these that exhibit giving weight to it here's why should you do that before you come up to us and say the trial court or i agree that's an option maybe it would have been i think the overriding issue is the court's underlying premise which would mean that if i took that step i still believe the court would take we still have this issue  i don't know whether the permanency versus the rehabilitative would have been solved but i'm certainly not this is an argument just read with regard to resources that the parties have  judgment call in this one i think in your crawl picture of when we're talking about the two legal issues that we're going to end up here anyway i thought it probably is most efficient for my clients use of funds as one of the issues here is who's go meet and you know i mean that's that's that's my judgment call and so i would i can see to court that i normally do what you suggest but i think when you look at lifestyles my client lifestyle is never going to get up to what it was and that's why i think from then we look at the amount and i think if they laid out she has about thirteen thousand plus of disposable my client has about twenty twenty two hundred twenty one he can't take someone on trips he can't give two hundred dollars a month and give us all of the things they did based upon the earnings and the family financial point so what should you do we asked for you to say look at the numbers the six thousand that we propose if you run those numbers those make sense and i did the numbers on what the effect is of what he has announced like seven percent of her and that isn't correct when you take into account he is getting paid twenty five thousand he is giving her back four hundred after tax as one of about five hundred before maybe five and a half in his right and so now he's got two thousand versus somebody that has two hundred eighty less the two so take twenty four  fast she's about to fifty six is just not equitable it's not fair and part of what she said was hey she's been poor and a burden for this child no doubt about financially she covered the child during the separation and that's to her credit and this child got to do extra things because of her money that's to the her credit but they have to take into account he had thirty two hundred dollars of temporary maintenance with no child support and didn't make it now he's got twenty five hundred dollars less effectively over five hundred dollars of that gross he's down to below to read to to try and maybe it's not that the amounts not that and i believe what we did ask for she could afford not to diminish your lifestyle and still be able to do all the things that she wants to do maybe extra send the child to greece pay the extra send the child to spank or not we're not trying to keep the child from doing that but there's enough money to do that and the tax effect of hers good she's in i think frankly what she pays us uncle sam pays thirty five or thirty seven pounds from state tax whatever it's going to be so i mean to the extent that this court an adjusted one adjustment that's why we're here and the same applies for attorneys fees he's his attorney's fees are you know he owes twenty thousand dollars to me before we started this trust us obviously and we asked the court to say have him pay fifteen now does anybody in this case have a pocket other than my client's impaired no but the stream of income would allow and if you look at her affidavit she doesn't always feel because she has the money to pay my client doesn't unless he invades corpus of his mom's estate and i don't think the law requires you case is one where a person has a farmland it's only fifty acres you're telling him if you want to survive if you want to maintain a modicum of what you used to do you invade your principle of the human error versus a lady who makes a lot of money a lady who can afford it and what's the equitable solution we can ignore or we can say ok to beverly you know your marriage didn't last eighteen years too bad you didn't you didn't get enough money and too bad that if you're going to pay your attorney you have to consume more of your hair and that's an essence of what he's been placed to do by the trial judge we don't believe in the law that cited a few but that's appropriate we think that this court there was an appropriate award temporary rehabilitative reviewable may it's we have a disagreement about the amount of maintenance and about attorney and all of these are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard all trial judges abuse of discretion is a higher standard it's not whether you or mr scott or i would have written the decision different it's could a reasonable person come up with this decision and i  it wasn't three six month periods it would take to get up to speed him in i t to get him ready to go back into work it was three to six months of training at at l r s i think is what he said to day training which he need to do apply for jobs and we'll look at it again and he didn't pick that day twenty four months arbitrarily that's when the parties child will go to school go to college and will look up what what you another chance if you sit three six months and we'll come back and work with the twenty four hundred dollars a month which is a reduction from the thirty two hundred dollars a temporary worker now during the temporary period there was no child support with twenty four hundred dollars a month he does have to pay child support be you know concocted for the purposes of litigation that that that that that he did not believe even existed then we went through his most recent amodeo the june twenty fourth team affidavit and we went through his living expenses where he lived listed as his living expenses and i put this in my brain of what he used the thirty two hundred dollars a month he received from my client to pay for living expenses and he went through the rant real estate taxes home insurance cable television internet these by this maintenance none of this work he said he paid for some of them out of the estate account did pay some he said he didn't pay at all he was just listing them on a saturday judge was very skeptical of mr otton testimony regarding his financial it was he testified in the temporary relief hearing that sense may first of twenty thirteen he had sent out any invoices to his customers why aren't you getting any wires why isn't that the business bringing in money you know i haven't sent out any and voices another reason why i just don't say you need to go out and get a job and you need to get your training and that's why you pay a twenty four month period it's one way longer four times larger longer than what mr otton said he needed to dollar fifty six thousand dollars and i don't i just frankly don't believe that he was he we he provided testimony he did not even investigate state jobs accounting jobs with the state of illinois and didn't know whether he just said i don't qualify for any of between we and i believe there was brief testimony that on a couple of them they needed to be c p a s but that that's absolutely true the i think the purpose of actually showing in the exists that the exhibit was that eat at saying there were no snow accounting jobs at those jobs because he was a he got out of the army for too long again but he said he never looked looked at jobs so i don't know which is right either either didn't look for him or he investigated them and found out his veteran with the attorney fees at issue mr scott cites the lawn as proof that a court may require one party to pay and other parties reasonable attorney fees here the party seeking peace is unable to pay mr imus certainly able to pay now he may have to pay for some of it with his his non marital money but he has cash accounts in his non marital say and the other party is able to and i don't believe ms i mean is it she she receives far less american property and she had to discretion not to worry and i don't think i don't think it did abuse is discretion to support went through in the maintenance and rehabilitation maintenance and amount of maintenance and child support section all the things all the responsibilities mis belief for different instruments and one of them is drums which is eleven different instruments this is all before they were separated he's already looking at colleges he's working how does in fact he's looking for colleges all the summer he's had interest  video games we're talking about audio visual development this is been since before the party separated he will go to summer camps in the summer games in northwestern university this is a child with some large expenses she's carry a burden of this judgment younger pointed he is taking into account the expense of the child  workplace and the city says that my maintenance awarded maintenance of warranty in general are designed to make the maintenance receiving spouse employable self sufficient to cut the ties and that's what he's done mr up remember this is the second told the judge twice i've got to stop this longer businesses not profitable i've got to get something else and the judge is encouraging him to do  and we were dealing with a twenty year marriage and what the court did then was say that maintenance was awarded for a specific period of time after the parties youngest child turned eighteen i think it was five years and the court said send sas a few years out and then another five years after the child turns eighteen you can't just end it that we have to we have to have some mechanism to review it we don't know what's going to happen five years after those five years well that's exactly what judgement only is doing  saying let's let's reconvene in two years let's figure out where we're at and again mr otton can use these two years to get it moving or he can do what he did during the temporary week period which is absolutely in the second one second case mr scott asked you to consider is in remarriage of the roy that case i don't understand how it's hit so likable but that was a twenty six year marriage in the main and the word was thirty five thousand dollars per month lavish lifestyle there was really no evidence in this case about a lavish lifestyle myself that i would suggest the parties have pretty modest lives they had they did take trips like that the testimony would say that the trips were associated mainly i don't believe it's true and i don't believe it anyway he proved it because because of his testimony about his affidavit and because the judge and the judge gets to determine credibility when he was examiner cross examined mistrials cross examined about his his financial affidavit he met with almost indecipherable answers to my questions about basic expenses also you heard my question of mr scott with regard to the search and see me that some of the information your clients over there were grossly correct what about them this is a very exhibit thirty five yes he was talking about this and i think that's i agree that that should have been brought up in the below but i don't but i think the most important part is judgment don't you did not ignore exhibit thirty five took it into account but he didn't itemize what he said is that my client's income was misleading ok because there were quote substantial limitations on her cashflow and then judgment on you went through those limitations and it wasn't for one k contributions it was it was amounts of money she had spent on the child it was it was amounts of money to pay for the child's insurance it was a thing like that and can mr scott cherry pick certain bullet points in exhibit thirty five and i'm sure he probably can but that's not medicals and the judge noted since two thousand and eleven when the parties separated after you know he she could carry the entire burden for the child and the household that's the entire so we would ask that the court can't even make mox so he's blown modest you know wipe the van down by the river but if it's substantially less the other thing is is it you know if you look at aruba david she has expenses that are less then her i mean she shares her expenses are considerably less than what you bring home now pain to hire temporary maintenance and all of these expenses for the child and all of this is extra and is is instruments in these camps and everything has left over money painted a higher amount made in temper with regard to the temper if you look at the time of my client he says you didn't use the money for his expenses and he says he didn't he couldn't explain his affidavit he explained his affidavit as he said i'm not paying taxes now because they didn't earn enough but i the taxes that are in my affidavit are based upon what i the cobra five hundred ten dollars a month versus her hundred ninety dollars a month that covered him past i haven't paid that but i certainly am starting in september fourteen all of those and he says the utility expense i didn't pay it no charge to the estate i guess like a half you know you could but he explained that he's not painted direct but it's coming out of his mouth the jobs that he referred to that mr cross if they didn't you check this in to go do this he said i don't qualify but even if i qualify what he was showing him were between thirty and fifty thousand dollars same thing that i'm saying to the court now mr two thousand per day in two thousand and thirteen when he took over the assets he wasn't doing the books she said here's the books he put in his machine he testified i blew it right my machine i had to go learn how to put it up so two months it took for him to do it's timely it's the business close oh it's still doing what it's doing part of the problem is when you say to a person here's some money you've got a choice of dumping a business today and going out and trying to do something them and is that he has existing customers existing people for years that i guess you could say cut your own lawn but what he did is finish up that season and tr guess i did but actually to some extent when he says he has done some things we've really yeah i mean whether there's things i would choose to do or not that's a different story but i want to point those out i want to point out that you know