they were both working for thriving financial and they earned approx three hundred thousand dollars apiece selling insurance contracts several back in two thousand and eight my  started having some mental and emotional health problems and in july that same year her twenty two year old son die unexpectedly sh s exasperated her further emotional and health issues she went from the requirement for thriving financial was making thirty thousand dollars productivity year she went from thirty thousand on down to the last ones around seventeen thousand she had a letter of warning bas say she worked for thriving financial for twenty five years she knew she knows what it was all about she got a warning saying if you don't get this back up to productivity your could be subject to termination s she applied for disability as a result of her mental and emotional state at that time and she received disability from her employer and  in my brief i had couch it in terms of a downward spiral just briefly to the subs death it started on a mental and emotional downward spiral spiral of my of my client  which ultimately ended on her getting getting on disability and the court when it was remanded back for permanent maintenance in my opinion did a  very veiled attempt at applying the five five zero four standards the evidence was overwhelming of this downward spiral you could act you couldn't  well he was he was at a lot more earning capacity than my client was at the time the divorce ended and he had no health issues he got on to another a cursory when you applied the evidence there i think the trial court was told ignoring that mental state the trial court did not put much  work didn't put much credence the fact that the son had died didn't put much credence in the fact that even the employer recognized her problem and put her on disability now if the employer can don't think the application file before was was was sound in its analysis by this issue my client went the other way and so my clients is down here the playing field has chilled to based on the weight of the evidence and when you take in much in that thirty one year old marriage and i think most case law says when you apply the five hundred forty and and the year of the marriage in the middle state and everything where she had taken that insurance policies and paid off numerous bills and those bills i think there was over twelve thousand dollars tribute to the husbands credit cards and they were not a mexican trip together and everything else so all that was used up she got down to where there's a fifty thousand dollar situation and fifty thousand dollars on a thirty one year old marriage work where she's going down to zero and he's gone from thirty thousand on up in my opinion is not is not a level playing field is supposed to be fifty thousand of these or making thirty thousand it seems like well but he also inherited one hundred fifty thousand from his dad and he said just recently died so we had the capabilities of biting me as he got the family home that was split out here they are over but he got the family home she had she moved out at a isn't supposed to be there and i apologize for that i'm more embarrassed about it because of the fact that the email in fact is an email from a client of ours who is complaining about me so anyway  would note in the appendix of the palace prefer on page forty four there's an exchange between mr brecker and judge casey about exhibit number seventeen which mr brett her has been referring to as the basis for the evidence of this woman's problems and the the back and forth is the argument about whether that was ever admitted into evidence and the final word by judge casey the court has actually the docket does not reflect that exhibit seventeen was admitted it was so a significant part of the argument that this court has heard already is based upon the only the only documents that was put in the evidence to indicate any kind of medical problem for this woman or mr ster second just to put a finer point on it the author of the letter which was exhibit number seventeen which was marked as exhibit number seventeen and  honestly as i read it i made a note to myself i'm not exactly sure what judge pace he meant he is docket shows exhibit seventeen was not admitted or maybe it just reflects or doesn't reflect that it was i don't know if that's if that's a difference or not but anyway the author of both of the latter is not a psychologist he's not a psychiatry he's a counsel so we don't have any evidence from a medical doctor as to or psychiatr i all i'm saying is whether or said when we were there for three arc i know but that's not in fact what they agreed stupid affects signed by you said is it the argument also was made a minute ago that the  there was a new job for my client mr stern and that mr starr had a the ability to make the same amount of money at the new job that he's been making at the other job there's no evidence of that before the court there's evidence that he had a new job we put into evidence some indication of what he had made over a period of four or five months from pekin insurance we also put into evidence some information about some final commissions that he would get from freidman but there was certainly nothing before the court to indicate that he was going to be court and mr becker and i and the judge had a discussion about this in the rehearing my understanding was the court said we do not reach the issue of maintenance go back and review the five zero four factors in light of what we have said which is that the hundred seventy five thousand dollars that the death benefit from the insurance on the son is not marital property the and the marital property of the mother mrs stern because that was she was the beneficiary of the policy i think that's what judge casey did ask mr rocker and me both at the beginning of the  rehearing to commit to the five zero four factors that were considered by him than the ones that work and we agreed that factors for five nine ten eleven and twelve were not applicable in this case and that the factors one two three six seven and eight were the three factors that judge casey would be would be looking at as he made his  his decision in this case i don't understand i i really do not understand what mr brucker means when he talks about a failed attempt to trial court judges he went back he reviewed them there's nothing ominous or dark or in any way implying any sort  of arbitrariness about the way the judge the trial judge did this at least in my opinion you know that the only factors that applied were six you know your we agreed one two three six seven ok the and obviously number one right off the path priests an issue because in the initial determination that was made by judge casey he h term in lieu of maintenance now when and of course mr mr brucker argued then as now that well mr sterling heard one hundred fifty thousand dollars from his family when his when his father died he and his siblings two of them divided up their farm down and it was four hundred fifty thousand dollars divided by three now with the this matter being sent back of each party she has a hundred seventy five thousand dollars he has one hundred fifty thousand dollars so that changes it somewhat to the evaluation of this of this matter i think what judge pace did in fact four two three five two and three six seven eight basically is that he he went back and looked half the money and came to the same conclusions he had the first time it was just basic that this court regarding  argue the nothing had changed insofar as what she received from before until we went back she still had the fifty thousand dollars we just called it something  talks about in part where you have someone who had to for good so lots of opportunities or where you had someone who had been a homemaker for thirty years and had raised four children and made a wonderful home or perhaps help but the mr stern in this case through college we know from the testimony at trial in this case that mrs sterling was the one who was selling insurance for freidman for lutherans in the first client i believe was a carpenter and she's the one who got him in the business and in terms of the the marriage there was a long period of time when they were each making six figures and she didn't forego anything as far as i can tell there certainly wasn't any basis that she had to be to be rehabilitated at this point in her life she testified that while she wasn't now actively selling insurance she was still keeping in office servicing some of her clients and didn't intend to quit now she also testified that she gave away part of her book a business i i  my guy there's no doubt that what mr brucker says is true that it has been a practice among both my client and his wife and some of the other freidman people working to my client that in order to be in order to make it convenient for convenient as a convenience for their clients who wanted to make investments and do so quickly they were using xeroxes of their signatures mr berger described as cl that's correct since i don't think there's any evidence other than what she said of of a physical downward spiral she said it was the subject psychological so whatever his credentials is there anything he does yes he does to a certain extent he has indicated that he doesn't think that chill ever be able to return to original level functioning oh well it says actually within the next twelve months if ever but she says she's still keeping her her her office and service and some of her clients and doesn't intend to quit as well as talking about her health mental and physical both city maintenance requires what he was doing before he had some restraints on what he could do because of his contract with thriven that for instance he couldn't sell products that were the same as what he he can used to be because he could sell auto insurance because i don't think frightening but in terms of investment products and life insurance and so on he wasn't able to do that for two year period but  in in her case i don't think we know at this point i don't know what has happened since we were here last with wife or the judge's order talking about where the hundred seventy five thousand dollar life insurance policy went the first two were spending nine thousand dollars for a vacation to mexico is it debts of their daughter who's younger who at the time we were in court i believe was a senior in college she bought herself a new car she paid off some debts of my client she took a substantial amount of money at she was warned about that productivity there's an exhibit to show that then she went on disability there's an exhibit to show that it's all in evidence to corroborate  court is settled with making that shit decision if the trial court told ignores that that evidence and and from the opinions here i don't know what  was was i don't think number one i don't think in truck would like to be reversed by the spelling words and he commented about that at the opening aspect of this order and you know i don't know what there is nothing more difficult for