and that the that the husband did prove by clear and convincing evidence that this corporation was actually an entity that was formed before the marriage and consequently after the director of the even before it was incorporated then after he married her director's the foot of the partnership ok i didn't know partnerships life oh this this then in the after after the marriage they formed a corporation the directors were the same there was no consideration changed hands that wouldn't be i originally and were changed into shareholders there as i said there was no additional consideration that changed hands and john may b efforts during the marriage contributed to the appreciation of that asset and then whether or not there should be a contribution from that non marital asset to the marital state i absolutely agree and isn't there evidence in the record that you know personal effort by the levy that the person may have something new to argue the way to talk about you having i'm not suggesting that that would determine whether it's marital or non marital that's a separate issue but it would be  created the poor are essentially took a one piece of evidence and that was a financial statement that was submitted to the bank for the purpose of a long and to use that value opinion came out just a few days prior to this solution marriage he looked at very important factors and the biggest one is that the business which was busin pointed out to him only that it made no difference even though he said it was one of the faculty that are original but in addition to that he and he personally was a party to the fact that they were trying to apply for loans and other banks and were getting turned down so i think the weather really didn't recall there know where it was paid off i think is a very small detail but when you the larger picture of where they went to several banks who were turned down for a loan and those were not the loan they were not trying to get loans to pay off the really all the work that they were they were also be and i don't believe that there was any evidence other than what was happening with the business after time that it was that as i said the business itself was not as profitable as it had been there were a number of things that fourteen going to be other than the other it gets there were two gets so one was do we pay off this one bank before we think they're going to call it in which they did and the other was just the is the other bank going to keep extending and they did which was a good thing for the business it didn't go entirely belly up but i would have to say that the  this financial statement that was submitted by the husband to the bank what he said at that point in time does work i think there's a lot more to it than that and is it true that from the standpoint of what kind of income can generate for someone who would want to purchase this business and therefore i think that the other factors less dollar and cents factors radically and that's what you make your money is the interest rate so if the interest rate drops your ability to meet mine with this business drive down the same time i think that  doesn't even do with whether this is marital niner property in fact all the requirement to do three should you want to change is to change all the ownership in the partnership for shares of stock they did that they didn't keep the same structure ownership in this business to his brother and his father there's actually no consideration we went through this ad nauseum in the record in the evidence deposition trying to find consideration there was not there was a statement that region's bank third party for no consideration is the definition of this nation i do judge kelly properly relying on the value of that property as of the date it was transferred i gave the property away july two thousand and thirteen less than sixty days after financial statement with the bank it was worth this amount you gave it so you dissipated that much of marital assets and we're going to treat it as if it's still there and you give it correct that's wh truck because it is not clear it's not totally clear from reading the order but reading between the lines so so he wasn't saying i'm warning you the corporation your interest in the corporation he was saying i can't award anybody the did then you do really doesn't make any difference about whether it is still worth that amount in the day of trial because the question is what was it worth when he dissipated absolutely absolutely i agree with that i think this is exactly the  not my recollection is that was about an additional one point four dollars was never about all the recorder once the madman players were pointed out frankly i expected they would be correct from the stand they were not i was told they didn't correct it was one state in that state it was very important that statement was i have not transferred my interest in this corporation we went down the line to that transfer until the week of the first trial setting in this case that's when i found out he had actually transferred the this interest and during the whole period of time intervening months he was trying to sell the business they brought in will potentially buyers to test by doing so it was it was were to receive sixty percent of the profits and the investors were to receive forty percent that is essentially the same as the stock that was divided when the corporation to file he actually the transfer was father and brother i know we've tourney splitting hairs all the time my bad but he denies that statement because that was not her statement  then it's up to discovery to conduct discovery and find out the ins in the ass that happens in every case you deny an allegation and the other side then takes your deposition ask questions also the i personally would probably have made an affirmative allegation after my denial but it is still a denial in the last because that really was not a true statement again splitting hairs but that's what we do fees but the poor took those fees off of the wife share of the mirror property as a debt that she was pain so that's i don't think that's quite equitable i think we need to go to either one or the