did not i was not educated not go to school did not speak english and so she met him and whatever english she did learn was taught by her and most importantly she proudly states that if you rely exclusively on translate from english to spanish or just for financial deal exclusively on her for office important financial dealings in translating from english to spanish and of itself i believe the traffic court to not look at that and that was an appropriate and as much as it wasn't would be a two step process in order for the united states and specifically only to register or to recognize that marriage they were married in a church in mexico i believe they have to have a second component of the civil component i guess it would have had to register the marriage in the state of illinois and what kind of done among the mexican governments in addition to having the church ceremony would have to have a civil document from mexico where the mexican government design reasonable or not based on the evidence for the trial or before the trial language barrier that she believed that she was a pricing him of everything that is fair that she translated those documents and said now if this type this house title then my name alone understand you don't have an interest in it  all i mean it seems to me ok always the even stronger for the individual to use actively disenfranchised like they thought might be some property rights that your case and  the head of any other thing that had the laws on perhaps he bought a motor vehicle or something along those lines but the the big issues there that they she testified respond to testify that she since we did have we had very little evidence when we got to this phase of the trial that it was a possible relationship where there were sexual relations involved between the parties primarily it was what was their arrange what was their partnership and in that regard i think if you had two men had a recession in living together and they had a partnership whether it was going to buy a building or a business or something along those lines where one party was american english and the other party was from another country didn't speak english but they communicate amongst themselves and the the non american or non english speaking person trust that person to handle all their financial affairs and all their financial dealings and the american english speaking person ends up killing everything in their name doing all financial relationship between the second time this figure over the head children at least one point in time were in a marital type relationship where they had children in a common home together but that would prevent or prohibit that you can't take in between a man and woman if you can prove that there is some sort of relationship no matter how distant if you have the unto influence and you breach of the duty that you go to them as a human being that you can rest on that relationship no matter how distant but any relief i don't think that's the holding in to it or the case that told it and i think that's why they  cases but i don't think it has to be so firm barring any sort of relief when you special established for the sharing relationship the breach of that and you go through not just saying we live together as husband and wife i want has stated that tween parties are in a conjugal relationship there is no right to equitable relief because it was the public policy of the state of illinois to encourage and strengthen the integrity of marriage and because of that she thought the using of use of equity would weaken that integrity and would not be something that we want to go forward through or if it did it was something that the legislature was the one responsible for making those changes  s exchange and they said that's not what you should be looking at you should be looking at what is the basis for the relationship and use that relationship that use in place of a marriage more in california and then in mexico so she was raised in california so she does have more the ability of that area the problem with that he is one was no evidence to that effect at all in fact there's no one knows to point out is there's no no actually no evidence anywhere of a breach if there's if there's a claim fiduciary duty there's no evidence of breach and we can't assume his name wasn't on the decided but despite that she was the owner she was not a half owner she would she pay for the entirety of the first vehicle and paid almost all for the other vehicles and again they decided that it involved my family but that since she was the total owner of the true owner it would be completely unfair to allow someone who had no ownership interest or the m found that she paid more than fifty percent but she paid that she paid all of more than half the of the both the mortgage and the insurance and th she had more invested in this home and not only that unlike in this case where she was never on any of the loans he was never actually responsible for paying he did pay them but he had no solely on a marital relations it's based on actual financial contribution the problem with that is that it is based on the relationship he would not have paid anything for this house if it were not for his relationship you can't say that independent of it's got to have an independent of the relationship for instance in one of the cases he quoted brod the fact is is before they even moved in together they work together this plan where they were going to buy property and they were intended buying it soon prove it and then sell it for so for money and then after they moved in together and then broke up parse this this semi arms like transaction fell apart and that's why they granted relief in that one because it was not because they're living there as though he would have no duty at all to pay for that house if it weren't for the fact he was the cause of the relationship but that was his family he would not have done it there was no duty for him to pay that there was no responsibility for him to pay that and he went out of paid it absen that he was in a relationship with  know what he said was he didn't think it was fair but that you know reading and yellow he said that that's a decision that has to be done under the law that's what he said  the and i think it and in cost it has to be acknowledged that both court said this is an area the law that the legislature needs to be making the changes and while there is talk secondary means they have acted to work please in the area of this they have said specifically your if you enter a civil union you will be entitled to the same property rights that common law marriage he was still be entitled to nothing under you in the problem and you have to have had a legislator legislature more involved in the central issue than they were in the creation of the civil civil union act yet they did nothing to change hewitt they did nothing to give not married couples but don't enter into a state recognized union any rights and that's still the case you want you're still good law even as soon as that goes into effect if you still have to be in a state recognized institution whether it's a civil union or marriage that is still the requirement and if recognise when you are not going to be allowed to have equitable really about multiple times that he did his own work she had nothing to do with the sale of street property she had nothing to do with arranging any of the third pairs of the taylor street property he handled all that by himself so he was capable of doing his own work and how did his name get on the the title to the lafayette property if you didn't aware that his name had to be on the title of the property house she was in charge of everything she handled all matters you didn't have any input she could do whatever she wanted this all of them to do whatever she wanted she she put her name on all the property she put her name to follow you it doesn't matter it's exactly the same argument that he's making exactly the fiduciary relationship it was unfair to me because this person control all  because that was public policy of state of illinois until the legislature did something about it was not due to the courts do it any measure about that assumption there's no testimony that he was denied that it was an undue or unfair or that she took advantage of the situation when he knows he's clearly established she knows how to get his top names on titles you knew how to correct the situation and we shouldn't assume for him and allow that to become clear and convincing that anything there was any breach that the jury duty if that's a good i do not believe that to be sure you should even come into it i think one of the central issues is whether present that she i think it's evident on the record she believed she was going to be victorious not based on a hewitt case but that she paid for it and that's why she no matter what evidence was presented because his name was on top because she paid for half here knowledge that and one of the key things here is that there is no evidence of a civil relationship beyond the fact they had children together the crux of the thai period from perhaps two thousand to two thousand and nine cases heard only evidence before the trial court or that the supposed out of civil relationship was that miss figaro property because everyone had a boss and turning it down rather the perhaps unique facts here are they both work at the same place and this was established they both made the same amount of money established and that  evidence presented he paid one half for the property i can't say that whether the record reflects that mr tata had it exclusive ownership of the lafayette property or not i i don't recall that happened to be that one has to grow it want to be in the partnership anymore and she ended up having the house title solely in her name and that's why she believes she should get it all beyond not having the civil for them or saying that he handled all this of affairs is contrary to this free rose or he could handle his affairs and self is contrary to what the figaro testified to she testified that she doesn't want to procure the goods for the sleep over all the trial court had a way not just whether she was testifying credibly about the payments on the house but overall the credibility of the evidence presented a