the years to issue here to go out and work in two thousand and five and in two thousand and four that was standing at trial roy innis father maintained that they knew that as of that year the that the money would stop and he would be limited to his rental income any sixteen hundred dollar gross her week's salary as he still continued to live in the million dollar home the to his base salary that hadn't changed since nine hundred eighty two he was performing the same services for the corporation in two thousand and four in two thousand and five he had been in ninety nine through twenty percent of what he had been making when he was performing the same services the trial court correctly disbelieved way when he claimed that his there were two income from ninety nine through two thousand and three was simply a year of corporations don't get the trial court though is incorrect when it determined that it was ok for the corporation to story that it was a gift to buy a house could not be true because the money continued to be paid even after the house was built in the parties living in it and there was three hundred seventy five thousand dollars sitting on the corporate books that obviously wasn't used for the so difficult here it was nothing yet and that was the trial court's finding where the income was not just a mere expectancy is it has as has been argued there was a pattern a stamp leashed that that was a reasonable compensation for the services he was providing there was no evidence that there was some drop in income or any other commercial factor that witness acetate putting the salary the tra we've missed the mark when they focus we get focused on the fact that dad was the maturity shareholder because what it was is over is the fact that these two were acting search and the father's majority status as a shareholder was simply legitimizing the cut off of the income roy is chargeable with this fraud by acquiesce income goes from six hundred eighty eight thousand and two thousand and two to ninety one thousand and two thousand and five but he is my understanding is since he was during that time there's been a charge should he have to pay the fifty two hundred dollars a month mortgage twenty three hundred dollars a month in child support which alone would be more than what he said he's making what did his income and expens question that in my view the amounts that he was apple gated to pay compared to the m l s he claimed he was making there is there is no way that that could have happened not and pay for his expenses the court ordered expenses under the income under the reasonable compensation indicates that as long as he was performing the same services then he was entitle to that same income stream absent some no fraudulent reason to reduce it there's been considerable focus on the out that have a right as a majority shareholder to take the vote to not pay him the money but i think that the cases that we've put out in their grief so that you may have a legal right to do something but when you that app that is legal is used as a smoke screen to obtain services and not pay for them in order to harm another that's an just enrichment and  the fact that you know maybe he wanted to pay his son more when the sole purpose is that except the same services pay twenty percent for the only reason that you don't want her daughter in law to get child support maintenance that's remove to amend the law and they don't have the exact dollar figure but it would be our contention that that the amount that should be placed in trust would be not only the amount that represented his share percentage but the fact that it would represent the income that would have been paid to him and that would be the foreman of the eight hundred thousand dollars would have represented and covered the full amount that would have been paid to him absen mean i'm exercising my discretion to not impose a trust my take on his is ruling which is in the appendix is that well even though i find you know that the cat was  in the view of the parties placed into these c d s and really belong to roy and that their failure to be unwise name is simply a shame that's different than what she's arguing that the trial court and express fin employment contract what had no right to receive any particular discretionary but from source enterprises only a mere expected that's what the trial judge said and i believe that that is a factual finding made by the trial court that there was no employment agreement he had no right to receive a bonus only and expect that the trial court specifically help allen source release father as the sixty percent owner control source enterprise a lot of both brothers many years ago one brother lives in california doesn't participate in the bone in the business he owns an equal amount of the company that royal the court was also specific it was  now i think it's also important to look at what the court did not find the court made extensive findings here there was no fun of any agreement between alan and one way to divorce to divert any money into see these there was no finding of any agreement on an roi that this money was being parked here in would be you know of a level to ruin some time in the future it was no finding of any sham wrong the court can say go get yourself properly or have your feet were almost put in jail right and that would be an action against the spouse here that's not what we're talking about here she's going out trying to reach out from third party source enterprises as a search and to see and she's trying to reach out there and save those assets and source enterprises or marital assets so she's got to show you know someone do it by source calculated decision that he was very upset that there was another man in agness life felt that you don't want to be a member of our family and i'm going to do it i can tell them what's available for i have no doubt if she had minor children i think that royce salary would have probably been reduced to substance level or right that's fell that's what he said and now you know my response to that is that if you look at the supreme this is this is alan source he's not married to agnes agnes didn't marry him agnes didn't marry the company the issue here is whether roy had a right to compel source enterprises to pay him any money because you know an employee in the supreme court's at will employment doctrine says that employee that will employee can be terminated for any reason or no reason at all and there are very few except that there's only a i think is very important here that's a case where a woman sued her employer for reducing her hours and income in retaliation for her exercising her rights under the worst compensation  maybe you don't know the answer but is it seems that suddenly his expenses far exceed his income yet i didn't see any allegation that he wasn't paying his bill also haha does that happen decision again i think the court to miss focused in that if you look at the heart of the supreme court the parents when they foreclosed on the farm they one hundred percent made that decision to foreclose at roy for you know a balun terry reduction in his income allowing danny to keep this money and you know being in control of that and and doing these things i mean  that most of this really belongs within the marriage case itself i think that the fact that i have a remedy to go into the you know the family who are in say this guy you know deliberately is reducing his income with dad's help impute the income and impose obligations but that doesn't get me the money from my client when he continues to work you know for twenty percent when he used to me and the fact that i do have that remedy i don't think precludes you know the imposition of a constructive trust in an here here's what you're going to pay him on your wife and your bill for child support or whatever and he says i can't do that i don't want seventy six or whatever it is he says well you make more than that so if you don't pay if you have work it out because if you don't pay it i'm putting you in jail  connection between the preparation never purchased see and then that the income plummets and then the c d s are purchased but i in their brief if you look at you know there has to be a specific  arrest when like the demolition case well there wasn't any to the historic home it was torn down so what's the rest of the rest was that the savings that the person achieved by getting this house  cook county case well they they're reading things with the city officials who what's the rest the rest is the brights that i don't think that you know like i say that you have to i have to