this case which is rather unusual the rules don't specifically address how we deal with this arguments but our usual practice is to tell the parties to just him to subpoena each other's arguments and we'll proceed in the usual fashion with a terminated and given that it was ninety percent of the value of the home and probably more it made sense to start to settle the case instead of spending more money on discovery and especially more money  well it depends on the circumstances of the case either it and the key point here is if there's a manipulation and money that really is a result of personal efforts was from work personal effort home depot recently and one of the challenges in cases like this is the doctrine of the law that tells us that the law favor settlements and disfavors i'm doing court orders and there are a number of her sidles in the marital sentiment agreement to the effect that your client has had a chance to do all these things and she said chance for example things and she just want any more time and she doesn't want to do any more discovery and burden to say that the evidence was not known before and could not have been discovered before couldn't you have discovered this before by inquiring about what is income me well i guess i well i don't know what that i don't need to keep doing more discovery is i believe that this whole company doesn't have any value and robert is telling us he isn't getting any income and more so with those two things together and then we did have a safety net  that's part of the financial settlement and it had nothing to do with a rather than a regular split everybody knew there was so that issue is how can the judge made all of these findings on a six point nine especially on a six point nine defense it's not other it for me that matter when you do a six why not i'm basically that already found the due diligence to be sufficient and then it goes in and makes a whole slew of factual findings which just completely deborah was given her day in court do diligence is not something that's you know just die hard fast rule all the rope in that case i'll tell you that it depends on the circumstances and in this case where we did so much discovery and it wasn't a case like th depot stores ended the wind up of the companies but the rest of the money was it was what represented the rest of the money that was received and that was the rest of the money that was bargained for at that she was to receive in january of two thousand and ten representative of the wife split of the retained earnings once the company list can be dissolved their best seven point one they have the middle sudden agreement says there's a two million two million dollars payment afforded seventy five thousand dollars in consideration of those payments try to call this retained earnings all it was but was that on the day that this case was proved up this money was in one of the one of the mud mining corporate bank accounts that does not make it a retainer for any for purposes of how to think about retained earnings that you leave money that the retainer he's case is misplaced these are these are situations where you have a non marital company and you have a the owner or the owner operator spouse leaving income in the amount of money and why the hours in this middle sort of agreement are so high this is not this was not a a new vendor this has been an ongoing concern and just wound up in at the years that we've you know that the that the judgment for dissolution was enter in september thirtieth oh nine order of the trial court to translate actually say that its distribution was in business and this is a court actually make a legal ruling as to what that money was and that were in the entered this case in september of two thousand and nine we did have to defer the reason it was the first because everybody knew that this payment was coming later with the wind up of the month i mean energies everybody knew was coming that's why the date is set like that but i don't want to get  there was only limited discovery conducted based on that this court said as a matter of law you cannot establish diligence here us something even more you have a very expressed discovery waivers one of which is that the parties waive their right to conduct any additional discovery to the extent not pursue any rights that if and you're not got if if it was just a matter of at them asking or or inquired of us when this money flew in we would have had to help them if they wanted to know ok the money that the money that we bargained for for the foreigner seventy five thousand dollars was here now and we want to want to know that they would have only had to do was ask us instead they waive the right to conduct any further discovery they pledged themselves right within the four corners  what they're waiving the right to do left but let me let me segue to the sanctions to show her i think it seems both parties agree that there's not a case out there that says you can be sanctioned for rejecting too much of a document you know in the  is important stuff that was rejected here it is why does it rise to the level of sanctionable conduct under supreme court rule one thirty something because it while it wasn't offensive to me although i can appreciate to mislead the judge or at least keep from the judge enough information for the judge to assess what it is you're sane in but at any rate did ok but isn't that you know just inherent in the art of it and if you can see that you're going to about everything and everybody is going to disclose everything and now you're including packs of letters instead of taking snippets out of out of context and trying to say well this is what it means and this is what we were told that the that the the former a lot of the information should be rev don't i think in the context of the fraud petition that you know there's a standard abuse of discretion so i think at least one reasonable person would take the position that you know don't give me a document that is only partially manipulating that he was saying i'm not getting any and at the same time allowing funds to accumulate from the period of time that he told her he wasn't getting any income to the e robert told us he wasn't receiving any sound that the home depot contract was over he works two weeks maybe in july they didn't appear that basically the only valuable asset was the contract and then work so that i cracked terminated it's running off there's not going to be any more money in there he's getting a salary you know see it's like there's fifty four