one of those grounds play itself was shocking on the whole the judge was so unbalanced as to be almost unconscionable i want to argue this is the product of a hurry bias in the lower court resulting in a lack of attention on the states contents of the stipulation what they believe to be is that you get supplemental record number six for the court says it's my understanding that talking to the attorneys previously that the parties are in agreement that the the marriage i believe of the st thing that should be applied in the case reimbursement is the presumption that the contribution from non marital states or maryland state is a gift of those months and it made its decision based on a summary table composed by deborah which itself is not sufficient just seem to be a lot of stuff there but but no one noticed that he also said that yeah i want cummings it was he was trying to get out of the dream and i think the court should have understood that so we believe this is a case where the court just didn't want to go to trial court found likely was unreasonable to insist on doing yet after the morning preliminary hearing and became biased against him it was a short trial by the way it was hardly any evidence besides testimony in the ruling was issued that afternoon to really appreciate how far the ruling that is it's important remember what it looks like as regionally expressed prior to the motion should we consider another was stated in court correct that it was determining the method by which the ninety thousand dollars reimbursement should be paid by only the court or the parties st to split the trust account holding the proceeds from the various sales partment release should pay debra nine thousand dollars that's not sensible reimbursement she come off and tot mom half of the proceeds are split in my case the result was so on balance that we didn't just lose everything he owed money take in more time in charity ridge sure that the parties understood the consequences of the stipulation if you wanted to find one it should have got a clear definitive statement from me so so you understand you're waving your it looks like deborah's constantly using non marital funds she testified she expected to get reimbursed but subjective expectation by itself doesn't overcome that strong presumption she might have thought she was going to get money back from improving the value of the properties she certainly going to be made for the benefit of the marital status but i made it from the standpoint of you know if somebody wants to use some of the others eighty percent of those fees please the court counsel my name is tyler smith and i represent there belabor the appellee in this case your honor this is sometimes the case no warrior in this room was present in the court room when the judgment was handed down so perhaps in this case more than in the others we have to rely on the judge's discretion the only thing that mister murphy's office and myself and been able to rely on is the record just like you and what our clients have told us the stipulation but where is that stipulation so that's the difficult tricky question at the beginning of trial like i said the judge said this it said that there is some agreement and there was not on the record i can see and so were the situations we're trying to piece things together based on like they said the record and what i see based on the trial transcript is leave insistently referring to the kingsbury address as her house and consistently referring to the cummings after i said that properly he could easily said my house my property mr murphy's office is has made a lot of the argument that well the agreement actually was he wanted  trial transcript raises the issue of who owns kingsbury for the purpose of giving out exactly who reimbursement question as to how much did mr lane for contributor and it was found four thousand was contributed i believe that he was awarded reimbursement for that contribution and so going based off of lee's attorney statements at least statements during trial the fact that the judge something happened enough that david list did not introduce evidence that yes kingsbury was titled in both parties names and here's why it wasn't meant as a gift and that the does this is that it is that he would have entered had and i think that if this court finds that every agreement has to be written down i think that family court cases will become clearer yes i agree but also there's a lot of co also decided not to impute income to deborah at the time of trial she had been voluntarily laid off from her last job it was a temporary job where she was laid off after that period that the employer wanted  she needed help after she she had been injured but she was in she was full capacity but she had a huge bruise on her face the picture just as evidence was submitted and so and i don't know that we leave but i'm not certain that opposing counsel said there was no evidence however there was evidence that the contributions to the marital state was not a gift by deborah's testimony that she expected a full reimbursement of the mon that she kept contributed i think probably the strongest evidence is much of the monies that she paid to the merrill state to improve these rental houses was done after he had left i believe some of it was even after the did this illusion and  to me what indeed happened was lee had left he had as yard pointed out earlier his job was basically to maintain the properties and prepare them for sale or for rent that had stopped and so briefs murphy's office makes quite a bit to do about the spread sheets that deborah maintained throughout her expenditures as being demonstrative i don't think that that's a statement that is supported i believe that it was a income she was fired after they separated because she threatened another employee behavior that is clearly a problem harm by society the irony is if she had engaged in this bad behavior she still had that job in the main its outcome would threats that she made that got her fired those bonds react under her control she should've known the consequences she was at another job though for four days i'd be p plastic's she criticized the managers there so she was only on board for four days she was also at the peoria housing authority the story is she knew that job was only get to last for months so the question has she had four months notice why was she looking for another job she's unable to work most people serious about finding employment to make sure they had something to fall back on so for that reason i believe she also fits the furnace standard which is one reason we fail to take advantage of an employment to consider the timeframe there was a period of time where he was making contributions not in the form of monetary contributions  and that period extends into those tables so the tables cover the entire year she doesn't sixteen the entire year two thousand and seventeen so there's a period where at least that should have been cut off so that only a portion of those expenses were that sun and part of it is an offset for a credit card bill that was pale think it was nine thousand dollars and then the rest of it was for all the a bit of labor that he had invested but there was no overall total that was spent during that that's a quarter of the time from from january to june of the period is only two years long and we're offsetting twenty percent  more limited than we would