on april sixteenth two thousand and fourteen in the dissolution of marriage was entered on march twenty fifth two thousand and fourteen evaluation however went back almost two years to december thirty one two thousand and one three thousand dollars for the company to projected revenues in two thousand and thirteen of eight million one hundred eighty seven thousand dollars we've taken a number of pages we've gone through the valu by the end of two thousand and twelve i believe was the date of the report of our expert compiled a report within two months of getting all the documents and one of the things that happened is that documents not produced that were needed for the valuation until the beginning of august two thousand and thirteen going up to october of two thousand and thirteen and i call your attention specifically record to four thousand pages of documents be produced however on august twenty ninth i believe it is that was in charge of the discovery sent an e mail recognizing that they were then producing documents five hundred seventy nine through one thousand eight hundred sixty that means up until that point in barring an expert testimony and he's like this is far more severe than is justified and call your attention to this court the third district that's go versus the parties knew that valuation was issue the name of the expert had been disclosed prior to the cut off in the nature of what was going to testified was the school's right to th basically the same methodology that mr list is expert in and the court found that was not credible in part because he wasn't an expert and yet he was using the updated fine usuals that's what he was adverse are now here we don't have a perfect record we don't have perfect performance by anybody kathleen didn't resent the documents on time or in adequacy of it in august when it was when their expert was first disclosed there could have been an objection at that point in time afterward the time for disclosure had run but collaborative process is much more in vote and then hopefully it will find its way in trickle down and i mean still sort of struggling with a collaborative process but dealing with that some things the judges become more involved  the process also in terms of making sure that the scheduling is set which was not done in this case and it leaves keeping tabs on what the recall exactly but i believe it was about a year into it between a year year and a half i think it was court the beginning of two thousand and thirteen when the other types of discovery got going in earnest it was while he was being paid during the period but here's what you have is that he's being paid during a period but then he's got imputed income going forward for child support and the question is you know here you've got the owner of a company a coworker of a company there all the sudden doesn't have an ownership in the company and is then required to go out and get a job now what there was no evidence in for creating much of it now he was entirely fairly compensated at that time yes yes but there's a there's a significant difference i think in terms of what compensation you could be expected to have and i do not know for sure but if i were to hazard a guess i would expect that when you're talking about certain jobs in last whether good morning justices and counsel my name is paul feinstein along with kelly marks we represent kathleen liska believe justice is i just heard some argument as to what could have been done at the trial i didn't hear anything about the appropriate standard of review regarding this case and the twelve issues that were raised and particularly a couple that were discussed by counsel after a long trial specific findings made by not one but two judges who became very familiar with parties made detailed credibility findings so i would start where counsel did with respect to  trial and all the disclosed the sensually was a little reference in the record sentence about her qualifications saying that she was going to value y s p nothing in terms of any documents bases any value and again this was sixty days prior to the trial and remember we didn't hear motions to continue by michael until the day of trial we didn't have a motion to withstand the time to issue the report there was a motion to compel some discovery which michael didn't question or alternately the trial where didn't have a hearing on discovery there was testimony as the court were castle as to what was turned over when and why and what was rejected and all it was redacted was names because there was a concern that michael was going to poach clients and customers there weren't any numbers there was nothing filed by michael  lawyer at the trial even conceded that it would be prejudicial keep in mind yet ling's counsel gets this report finally from this forum for two days before the trial trials been set for what it months and valuation they happened is that the the custody trial justice actually started on that monday and then it resolved at that point and so michael's position is well naturally result custody and i'm not certain as to what the basis whether it was an order or whether it was just something that i dispute was doing so there wasn't a specific request to continue but there was that possibility obviously that the business would have report was already done in twenty twelve the trial dates was that the trial judge didn't want to start over and then have new days  she said in all of the problems were anxious to get this done and nobody wanted to wait until early twenty thirteen to have twenty twelve records she referred to both partners again this was something of a eleven justice i think is the actual date yes and when she got started on the project she didn't have twenty twelve she needed to finish it it needed to be disclosed so all that the scullery could be done you have to keep in mind these business valu they take several months which is why it yet means lawyers didn't have any time even if they had miss holders name which is only had sixty days before under rule two eighteen discovering with respect to experts is supposed to close it's mostly long before sixty days prior and we didn't have a name and address and yet leaving did object because she had to go to court they got to get an order disclosing michael and his it was the report was done december twenty eighth twelve evaluation they reached december thirty first twenty eleven the trial date had not yet been set but i believe it was still in april or october it was go the michael being ready in the trial went ahead and i believe that at least one reasonable person would say the trial judge in that circumstance did the right thing and that's the issue not what would have been it's what was being done though is the record in the case there was there were many requests by michael's counsel most of them informal there were letters e mails going all over the place and there were substantial and legitimacy of the records and she did have some issues with respect to that and you have to keep in mind again this is thrown at the witness in the big in the middle of trial she had already done a valuation that took her obviously several months to get done  the end of twenty twelve and that's what she went to court and testif regarding oh yes all this was going to i mean you had a lot of detail of the report solve the documents examination the cross examination i mean this is not a situation where and there was a lot of evidence and findings made by the word that michael had two years on administrative leave he was making two hundred thousand dollars and his efforts were insufficient in the it's opinion  at the c m nation it didn't really go in interviews he went out with some of these people and yes them very general questions without the immigration issue which he tries to conflate with us and i'm always happy to talk about a great deal of that was my case but n do you put all of the sanctions with regard to the child support in terms of the imputation of in from i just want to clarify that that six months the judge so when did that work for talking to easiest that was around the time of the trial after is expert had been barred now management's before the no no because at that point in time there was a gap where he was trying to get documents for his expert so yeah numbers were doctored but with out the information that went along with it it was very difficult to tell how those things line up certainly the most recent information but not been produced by any a words prior to august and this goes back to mr starkness even prior to august twenty ninth two thousand and thirteen only five hundred seventy some documents have been produced the balance of the four thousand pages of documents were produced after that  get i would you know wish things were otherwise i wish something's been done differently by all parties and by the judge but the question is what is the appropriate thing to do and is it truly was a truly a fair trial for the current value when the trials in two thousand and thirteen to do evaluation based on two thousand and one especially when we know that there was increase in revenues you know what the economy was happening and sort of the downturn and then hopefully the constant rise after that and this is a painting business something that is unique somewhat to real estate so it's not surprising that there has been a change or would be a change in that and this goes to a basic question we believe of fairness rather and what the be able to can because of his trials of work my sense is that is different and probably would be able to look at income up until today but