and in the furring to volume seven page thirty four we go down final seedings in this case judge drummond came to the conclusion after mr schock submitted his proposed distribution of property you've proven it's on merit but because you lied rigidly and said you didn't pay for it and you paid your mother thirty six thousand dollars it came out in disclosure of late that it that's a conclusion came to that i think the record supports and now on the basis of the conclusion he's songer these people and you understand counsel when he decides when he saw the deed the judge said we're going to have the property you praise sanctions are when you do everything to abuse the process my client provided his tax returns he provided made access to the his statements once he's been caught no lie if there would be a burden to chip in us i would say that we've done a good job in providing clean entire discovery good for  course i visited your discovery i'm just talking about the credibility your client what's his because no i think weiss should the judge believe anything else she said this without documentation supporting it so he says gee this first time i in our time that this court reese see records where we see a lot of the stew and i frankly don't like it i suspect my colleagues don't be invariant you know maybe it's a good hope the stuff for as a senator isn't it really just simply a division of the property of the party not the total marital state that the court found which included the two hundred twenty seven thousand fark that the judge said was a marital asset was three hundred eighteen thousand nine hundred two dollars so this farm when you look at the way the judge divided the numbers in the end constitutes a out two thirds of the total state if you took it out the or because when you put the combination together that's part of the second argument in our appeal the judge also gave significant maintenance in this case so maybe i'm wrong the way i see it that when this is a sixteen year marriage when you've got a court's looking dividing close to fifty fifty and given maintenance that's one way to go if you're going to do away with maintenance then you'd have more of a disproportionate share given to them in that person or a spouse that makes the lesser income so with regard to the to the the problem that i see in the case is that mr bradley except for that first day clearly provided all discovery and th first day that he was in court the judge statement said maybe the judge didn't believe him that day that he didn't know about the there sure good evidence that was put before the court even his mom said it was again the properties valued at two hundred twenty seven thousand thousand that money was isolated and that's where the thirty six thousand came that he gave to his mother his mother and him also testified it was a discounted price which the mother did a discounted price with him in two of his other siblings he got his mom to produce her tax returns which she would have to do he laid it all out in front of the court played a game fairly there was not one motion to compel there was not one motion that he was the nine hundred scullery only issue that were making three hundred twenty dollars a week in regard to the child support last issue the second one is to she that going on the child support we do believe the judge made an error in the year was that he felt that we only provided out of the twenty six paid periods twenty when we came to our calculations that we only provided twenty five pay periods that's not critical as checks that we provided including the pay period up to twelve i'm not being difficult i don't understand you're saying did he did he not know that you have to produce the discovery anyway isn't the question  it is her and i think at that time just makoto referred to it it's i don't own a farm if i own a farm i don't know i don't know about it and if i do have a farm i don't have a deed and if i have a deed it wasn't paid for and if it was it was a gift and if it was  if it wasn't a gift it was paperwork non marital funds that also ironically more disposed but the fact of the matter is i think that most of my practice and from the judge running for a long time and i this is one of his better opinions not because we have in the wind but the manner in which he said it out this was errors lies of omission omission over a link the period of time all through the discovery process then after his current court he we claim that it was our pride when we found out about it when we saw the deed it was oppositionists the deed was acquired properties acquired during the marriage and some marital assets that's when it got too it was paid for with a gift well then it turned out that wasn't true  before that was new to us we were literally trying this case on the fly that's the problem i have real life so to say it differently so hugh your position is there is at least a colorable argument here point of view that this is very real property anywhere absolutely it's but it's clearly acquired during the marriage it's acquired by deed it is paid for with funds the source of which he says are a gift that turns out not to be because it was  it was acquired by deed in two thousand and five apparently yes when were they married it was a sixteen year marriage from so that would be in ninety three so they've been married for let's say twelve years where they and then awarded my client the sixty thousand dollars the home the interest the equity in the home the making incident things of that nature but the fact the facts the facts are i don't know because of the problems that we were continually confronted position that was never explicitly said i would have to agree with that and i and i would in defense of judge from the use of you to defend him but the fact of the matter is i think he was  rick so it looks like he was treated as very real property but he never said one way or the other i think that's a fair if he ever say this is america property no i don't think we got to that point i don't think there point this is that marital property but it's the same shit as if you're nineteen c i don't get a lot of claim and i'm going to deal with this if it's fair i i can certainly go down that road and i would love to accept your position i  first off i think the court found that it was marital property since there had been there is a specific finding that it was not married i disagree with him on that but the fact if you're asking me to answer the question is whether the appropriate this sanction is appropriate you know very you know going back to what you said we also suspect that we're not hearing the truth all the time but to get to this point i would have to agree with him i've never been involved in anything close to this were some you know if you get caught in a lie the smart thing to do is say you got me i didn't he didn't do that he just why for lack of a better word and the fact of the matter is this was a very simple not a large this is allowed to happen it's a license to lie i think just that drummond's analysis of the pos benefit analysis is a good idea if it's going to if i risked life thousand dollars in the opposing counsel's attorney fees to gain one hundred thousand dollars two hundred thousand dollar for let's take a shot at it because i got the five thousand the rest that's not what divorce should be about if we tell our clients fleeced that you only ask you what do you want me to sandwich or see the truth because if you don't you lose your credibility one issue you lose your the it's very clear to judge drummond act appropriately here are these sanctions an abuse of discretion or think too much when is it too much for him to do what he did if he would have got away with it is it too much to say that he stole a two hundred twenty ruling in november seventeenth was inadequate to set forth a specificity for the reasons for the sanction is required by two nineteen a court stated that it was finding that the undisclosed hundred eighteen acres with merit it is more accurate to skate  to the rule is offering the father for maintaining his claim it's not under it appears to this court that the thirty six thousand dollars paid for the farmland was from a non marital source being a personal injury claim which  accrued before the marriage that the father segregated those funds that no marital funds were commingled in the father separate account in the total price was paid from these funds those we filed a supplemental bradley both testified it was a well reduced price it was a get a good part of you thirty six thousand dollars was paid which we disclosed by providing the mother's tax return showing that she received the money along with other money from two sevens but in answer to your question where the money from your client come from but it came from what we filed in our mandate supplement the pretrial affidavit that was filed able thirtieth two thousand and ten it was a structured settlement that he received from  pre marital i said the settlement was completed well before the marriage even that infrastructure when the last payment came in this ninety thousand dollars it's all we we got the bank account we got the checks we got the contract it took us a long time to get this information through i think a texas attorney he had left the farm located him and we laid it out in our in our minutes of the pretrial affidavit we laid it out in our last second supplement which was filed me temp when we is it the end of the decision i just read it's the last page that decision that was prepared by judge drummond mr shock prepared one on what i read to you first where he said he lied when mr shock had a propose record in this case summary of it is the sanction and i think despite that i know you have a credibility issue which you can't really you don't really detention i think this is a case i tried many many cases he produced he produced he produced they never had a bar motions for discovery he got documents that were out of state you got to watch out for ever so they were three times that he lied he changed his couple things one is that was clearly one of the issues that was brought up before judge drummond's motion to reconsider and as we all know judge drum did a lot of work on it came up with a final decision which is obviously again i think very well reasoned very well thought out  a couple points warning us that by that time mr bradley in my opinion lost all of his credibility so whether mr bradley so they're not you couldn't believe them the thing that it that that is not taken into consideration is the income from his farm because it's more or the judge drummond just simply looked at it is look i don't know what this guy makes i don't know what's what he's made off the farm i'm going to set this figure because this appears to be a correct fair figure based upon the evidence that i have in front of me and i can't believe what mr bradley has because it's income was clearly at that time more than just his pay stubs he owned one hundred twenty acre farm to generate income trying to figure out what it was was another task