basically only last that in the main that were in contention one was the cash value of a certain life insurance policy also of value equity in the house found by the court the only value on the insurance that was presented was by me and that was the cash surrender value shown on documents supplied by states life insurance  issue then on the house was that there was a mortgage and the party stepped related as to the value of the house for market value and there was actually twenty nine thousand two hundred dollars in equity  court transferred the house equity to matthew since he was living there and patricia already purchased another house and gave patricia the cash value of the house they ostensibly sighing that it was up front from their salaries and then that would be paying the premium each month i think the responded is trying to characterize that that mr canady was behind all of this truly at trial well what if she loses her job now we're in the what if game and this sports already rather unfair no i don't think in this case because  in his or his mother farm i think the mother's farm issue was a red herring simply because it is never produced a positive cash flow it's a neck that negative and it's only a few acres that he may receive on her passing but that had not come to pass and so i think consul threw that end to cloud of the issues i can't say that cash value we've got three hundred twenty five thousand dollars sitting there in a pool of money of which i had a better she ended up with one hundred eight thousand dollars my client walks away with equity in a house of half of twenty nine thousand two hundred dollars or approximately fifteen grand she walked away with half of that state's life our say well you of about fifty five thousand dollars difference of seventy two twenty eight and i do believe that no one could really just see or say that that was not a substantial injustice when  try to push it into the policy the policy stands alone they could buy insurance they didn't have to buy insurance they were obligated under the buy sell just to purchase shares on john had to work with the well if they wanted to be have the option to purchase a share yet important that is important only and that they all work there and at the time of trial they were all working there and as far as i know fairchild and in fairchild that or was presented with not this particular fact situation but if it just a reserve jurisdiction approach i'm know you do that math it comes down she is a transfer about twenty five thousand dollars my client and that could have been done quite easily there's no prescriptions against getting policy on there's no prescriptions against assigning a portion of the cash value of our city either in our state or in the by salary and consequently i think it would have been a very easy thing for the trout simply order that u court found was a marital property at the time of the trial we can't put that off unless we reserve jurisdiction if your reserve jurisdiction obvious way follow the fairchild case then he gets his do i think i was telling my client as far as i could tell and i did not go over the state farm's home office years their extensive library but none the last i did find anything else and i'm not aware of ruling that we need some direction on what is the how huge expenses that should be paid judge sue ordered that each parent was paid one third of ryan college expenses at a junior college but the issue then came out on the party stipulated during argument in a tryout or that the judge should rule on whether room board  transportation which is extensive as from lexington illinois all the way to west normal which is approximately twenty miles around each way forty mile round trip that those things are properly that was reserved by the court and the issue of how it expenses was also reserved for more of an ad is paying child support to patricia so i don't see how that really affects this at relatively equal there is no five zero three the factors to consider there was there any evidence as to the cost of housing right it was presented to the court we showed what the mortgage wise we you know there's going to be he's living there he's consuming our huge consuming food and he has consuming having a house over his head i think the word policy is mentioned all through the by selling agreement it's it's over and over mentioned in the in the terms in its very terms and i think it's a paragraph to see her or  d think it's a paragraph to see state specifically that the policy proceeds are to be used exclusively by the participants to purchase the shares and it goes on further unrelated individuals you know the unique factor here is all participants are are are related but i think it's clear by intent what was going on here is that the policy was there to guarantee that there were assets that the state that john john kerry's state would he would receive money for the dealership regardless of what ever else happened with his children who are they you know in debt up to their ears are they bad business people whatever money they don't they have an accumulated the assets the purchase the dealership that there was something there to guarantee employment of any of the errors or in the the participants was guaranteed i mean there's no separate there was no separate employment contract presented so really i think according to the testimony of mr kerry that the employees were at well i mean these longer participate and he no longer owns the policy so they're in it's operation you know we can see it be agreement is contingent it doesn't guarantee anything for the for the children they have to be working full time they have to be satisfying whatever mr johnson already you know his expectations to participate here to go on  question but when we turn to the when we turn to the distribution the part of the assets that is a manifest weight of the evidence standard it will i will concede i but again i think section five thirteen here you know again you know me ten thousand dollars more than life in present income he got thirty thousand dollars of the equity in the marital home which could be accessed right  parties previously were paying a third third third and to assign more expense to my client that really wasn't an expense i don't think it's fair  don't think that mortgage payment qualifies it's something it's going to have to be paid anyway and frankly the parties i think it's just logical or are they just logical to to assume that winds that you know we're going to be paid anyway and like so i think it's unfair that they slating both you know ryan is saving money by staying at home he doesn't have that out of pocket there is going to be there any way has no restraints whatsoever on it is simply there they own it they've bought it with their own wages that is their property you can not then pay some arrangement after the side that then restrain them from doing something without them getting a separation back if you stop working there suddenly you lose everything you put into it parties pay taxes on for sixteen