in this particular case the trial for help that currently statement in her first notice of dissertation that the marriage broke down obvious to two thousand and fourteen was a binding judicial emission unless sh their husband was without her knowledge having a sexual relationship with another woman earlier today the issue here is we believe whether or not the court could properly  trial and there were facts prove that it is the work rate findings did it not as to whether or not the date was appropriate under the circumstances and those circumstances would relate to expiation and so on well i think i think if i may i think i understand your question has been whether or not her conduct was in the nature of a condemnation on her think the trial for made some confusing and times inconsistent findings on this particular subject we were questioning what mr swift sexual relationship with giving an r n and him having a heart attack him staying to be a caretaker of his for a period of time i don't know that that as a matter of policy should preclude somebody from being able to claim wish that occurred earlier if the marriage was structured perjurer by the chaucer's conduct but this record also does reflect then after that caretaking they continue to have a life st including vacations i'm here with some company on his vacation and i'm assuming that it they also had a sexual relationship that is part of a his extracurricular conduct for a year off so is that the focus then i mean the infidelity is the primary factor that would determine that the marriage is broken and does it matter that maybe actually she didn't know about it versus if she didn't know about it when we raised that issue in the trial or in one of the things one of the defenses to the traditional admission was how can she stays a matter of fact when is different than she thinks is if it is different than the trial or the basis of day you're saying that the breakdown can be based upon either spouses or so i'm sure you can break down news even legal conclusion that the trial for needs that was done before the year after the marriage mr swift decided to execute on the contract and purchase the pleasant drive property he asked his father and his option so clear testimony by mr shweta that he had an option original way that his business was going to buy and then pay his father approximately fifty thousand to transfer the option in shoe this new l l c he will mr swift testimony which was on the budget was there he did not there was no down payment for the real estate it was all part of the original package deal for cushioning and that included the option to purchase source of revenue or income of anything christian unique we know that the movie income over the past several years prior to the trial it was about six hundred thousand dollars per year for the critical terminations how much of that income was marilyn how much was thousand and sixteen when when he went back to work for basically full time so the rest of their income is not nearly come i'd like to make an analogy if you want if you look at the heat rate case with regard to the real estate it's right on point he would say two brothers operating the family business which they have received from the parents proud of the marriage purchase the real estate with a business operations from interference they take the rent money each month from the business to the joint account so that they have the money in the joint account to pay the monthly payment due for the real estate so the money went from the business to his to the parties joining their account then went to the parents to pay off the moment for the purchase of the building million dollars for which included the purchase price of the real estate he had that much money in investments any earnings on those investments would clearly remember her without any question if he operations of the business and we have to address this issue with income attributable to his personal efforts but it's clear from the record that the money that came out of chris you're in for the benefit of the family far exceeded the income in the business that was distributed hours and then lomax so there was no marilyn come there was no it was in the end the accounting for the business testified that the amount of the bonus was calculated based on the pr spouses so in this case we hear over and over compensation of mr screw it when i ask him to get that money back obviously he voluntarily continued to draw money out of the business theoretically he could have paid himself a salary one hundred twenty thousand dollars and left everything else inside cushier in as far as the operations of the business that would have made any difference the only difference to mr swift would have been each year he would have been taxed at the corporate level which would basically be his spending money for whatever he wanted to do for the month and then he put the bad ones ten thousand twelve thousand whatever it was into the household account so that the money to fund the family lifestyle to pay the mortgage using everything else becomes so if he's got six hundred thousand in income for purposes of determining maintenance because it is not merely comes his income under section five of four for purposes of calculating maintenance so leave the issue here is the two  title to real estate in this does a patient claim because as i said five thousand a month cash each month we we are going to really it was consistent with the lifestyle of the vacations they took in the things they did to spend that kind of money but also  happened in the end they form a whole new corporations that were completely unrelated to the original any farms business which was farming in the midwest new buying mcdonald's franchise in florida with very little money from any during the marriage by one of your machines that was formed during the marriage but would you agree with counsel that even if these now suits companies were created during the marriage if they had no assets in them and that time th contractual arrangement so what consideration was there that would change it in this case their consideration would be that cushion here is deriving a tax benefit by sheltering money in a business that goes to show why we would argue that the source of the money that comes into any mirror business is not retaining its classification is not marital events because there's a ended up being reported on a case one or two more of the secret tax return that is taxed when we're supposed to be focusing on this the actual transactions and what happened is he received one hundred twenty