and how that was affected by the joint decision and after those briefs were file and the judge then made a second judgment ordered list in which there was in december of two thousand and seven in which under the statute there are certain exceptions exception that applies here is five zero three a six which is again all the parties agree that  preparation was formed prior to the marriage there's no question about that there's no argument about section five zero three a seven provides an increase in the value of a property acquired in this case under five  zero four zero five and zero six and where the money was hidden and there is nothing that the corporation did to purchase anything outside nor did it do any thing with that money except that he took it that leads me to believe that you have to really the joint case with and say you can't hide the money and i would agree with that you can't hide the money but the court in our case actually found that the should the respondent basically have no income how the lid was on what the petitioner brought to the marriage and he brought to the marriage substantial amounts of money we're talking about six hundred eighty thousand dollars and what was basically happened in this case the you know your client was basically using this corporation as a piggy day when he needed more money he'd order a distribution he had asked no one he did what he wanted to do but he didn't have to answer opinion that i do believe that they they they ruled that it was a was a marital asset and therefore not subject to the same the same rule that joint gave i just think the joint court was wrong and i don't think they looked at the statute  seventy five thousand dollars the first time around right and then he gave her forty percent of the maryland state the second time around which amounted to three hundred what a five thousand one hundred dollars then i would think the further argument there that i somebody got twelve thousand five hundred dollars court awarded him fourteen thousand five hundred dollars i may have this right that's twenty seven thousand dollars on a billing for fourteen thousand five hundred out that makes no sense to me either i believe that the court would hear privately held absolute control and as justice not said exercised absolute control drew money when he wanted to so it took distributions way while two specially after the separation over a quarter of a million dollars put in  separate out there's there's just no dispute about that on this record and i also believe that justice mis reading of the schmidt case is correct and the house of reading is incorrect that there was more involved in the schmidt case that the husband has the burden of showing that he's monies were not a tribute a bill to his personal effort there is nothing in this record in support of of mr long though cases all over the united states if the court looks at the law for across the united states there isn't one case where the husband owns a hundred percent of the company exercises oh control of the a six and a seven of the special property quarter before the marriage an increase in value of property acquired before the marriage this this claim is not based on those was probably classified as as marital property it was probably distributed and unless the court has any further questions i would rely on other reasons to affirm the judgment l one hundred percent of the corporation does not state anywhere there is to you know he sucks about factors but he doesn't go through what the factors were he certainly doesn't say the trial just doesn't say why seventy five thousand was enough the first time three hundred