mortgage s p c cross table food repairs enough to put the house cleaning supplies extraordinary medical expenses of the parties children angela michael college visits for angela and one quarter of the following expenses make or gas water comm just of her own doing she testified that the move terminated her obligation trip effects justified in various instances that she understood it was her allegation she understood that didn't order her pay or half of anything just ordered her to make the payments for the guitar license plate well the order specifically required to win by name to pay one hundred percent of the tireless but that order name and requires bruce to pay fifty percent joy and feel that that means that she's not required to pay the other fifty percent while she can say that but she can also say you can also review the testimony and b her own testimony she complied with the terms of the order for eight months she paid fifty percent of all of the listed she paid seventy five percent of the night for gas water and com ed and when she a seven eleven thirty one thirty five first district from one nine hundred seventy two which essentially acknowledged that orders don't exist in that vacuum that they exist in the context of the pleadings that brought down before the court and more directly in re the marriage of blair which is three seventeen eleven thirty eight fifty three and that's a first district two thousand case which unequivocally stated the effect must be given not only to w but what i also with which is unavoidably unnecessarily implied in the judgment or degree now we only have litigation involving two parties and when one party brings a petition for relief and that relief other pay fifty percent of bills the first party is asking for a contribution to the only unavoidable conclusion would be party one pays the other fifty percent because it wasn't an obligation or anything along those lines he just wanted acknowledgement by the core of the fact that joanne didn't pay so that his share of real estate could include a reimbursement from joey and for what she had paid for those thirty three months  which ties in similarly to the argument regarding the issue of child support and again during the course of these proceedings julian filed a petition for temporary relief in fact she filed titian for temporary relief  for prior to the petition for relief regarding marital contribution fishing for relief regarding child support essentially order to pay one thousand dollars a month child support to join moved out of her own accord she left a minor child michael with bruce the entire time bruce was continuing to feed trial support to joey and while she was living alone in this apartment  dying approximately two months later bruce fought filed a petition seeking to terminate that child what obligation unfortunately because of the nature of this particular courtroom and will county this courtroom one through three judges in a matter of about a year and a half and what happened was when the titian with the revealing file had a free trial the court said hold that for the trial this will be about thirty days we'll deal with it as a matter of being part of the since september of two thousand and five miles from living in the apartment in diamond alone michael's been living with his father bruce's continued to pay child support to have a thousand dollars a month to so  that doesn't mean that bruce isn't now entitle to number one a reimbursement for those that child for pay his child support that was paid didn't benefit michael it benefited joey but it was something that the treated as temporary maintenance until we get to trial well forty five days became thirty months and it just continued to accrue now she wasn't even talking to her son at that point yet she was continuing to receive a thousand dollars a month that came out of bruce's pocket that could have been used to maintain michael and wasn't it was used to maintain  she had more income than her bills required she was more than capable angels or out of that income but did she maybe not a single payment to for the benefit of mike she did suggest at some point that she had made payments for the benefit of testing course that really should pay for when she was receiving child support from bruce when they were both in the house together so ultimately she really didn't pay any of have been deposited in these accounts now right after the reconciliation when the initial case was dismissed and probably about two weeks before the case was reinstate first of all with respect to the order pertaining to household expenses it's clear and unambiguous that the order only ordered my client that you should use the payment of michael's guitar lessons or was specifically drawn and it said that mr hayward was to pay certain portion of mortgage certain portion of utilities he did nath order my client showing he had agreed to pay for those particular items for the terms of it or it should be noted the at the time of the entry of and requested a modification of the or he had he done so he may have got a certain relief he never did he never filed a petition to modify the order now he's coming in the petition that mr mccarthy refers to that was purportedly file and be here for his client was in the court file it's unsigned and it does contain steve it's not the normal time stamp there is no or now it's clear one of the standard of law the act even if the court finds that it was properly file you this court so far as the at the trial court he has the discretion great deal of discretion in determining whether or not any kind of retroactivity or retroactive relief should be green in the end i believe the at judge police shows decision was not an abus discretion with regard to name k s your question about that let's say that it is a term that was properly filed what would be your basis for saying that it was proper for her to have kept the four hundred sixty five biweekly over a period of eighteen or so months when she didn't have the child she also had no obligation to make any expenses of the marital residence or are pay to turn his income by twelve thousand dollars four thousand dollars a month which is the same amount in the tempers child support was in the order because this is quoted in my brief that that everybody knew that it could be construed as maintenance testify there she utilized some of the monies for her living expenses now while her explanation in the record was not tremendously specific but again since there was no it's not like there was a claim for suspicion coming from us that she had time to respond to she suggesting that bruce should pay fifty percent on a motion brought by joanne the clear and unambiguous portion of that order is the join and is continuing to pay the other fifty percent because it's a motion to contribute not a motion to pay a motion to contribute so that contribution comes in the form of additional songs to help her make each payment one hundred percent from the standpoint of the dude from the standpoint of the order so i don't think the fact that mister harum are not signing the certification makes the petition that he filed questionable in any way the reality of it is i think that pretrial mrs hannover was under the under under under the impression that the temporary child support order was going to be treated as temporary maintenance until we got trial now the problem with her suggesting now is that that's what i intended that's what i believed it to be is i don't think either party knew what it was and that's shown by your review of the record because bruce didn't take a deduction on his taxes and she didn't claim is income so i think that's even more followed up by the fact that we talked about this pro forma tax return to the filed this fafsa and he reduced his income by twelve thousand dollars i think when you review the transcript mr mr hammer testified that i didn't know how to deal with that twelve thousand dollars my job was to get a check of the financial aid form in behalf of my daughter and that's the best i could come up with that would reduce my income that would make make her eligible for financial aid but i don't think either party knew how to treat that pain all we know when it was paid and mrs hammer never paid it back nor did she ever pay her twenty percent for mike from the standpoint of the dissipation issue if i come back here to serve a second your client didn't feel the issue of the award of maintenance in the divorce was the recognition that joanne was making forty seven thousand a year she was ten years younger had essentially fifteen years left on her viable working life and was more than capable of affording the existence that she was enjoying fex testified that she was enjoying a much more lucrative much more higher lifestyle than she had ever enjoyed during the marriage and that was based upon her forty seven thousand years  bonus and mr hatteras thousand dollars a month in temporary and now seven fifty a month in reviewable for thirty six months and about back to the issue of dissipation i don't think there's a necessity here to have filed a notice and shifted the burden because i think the evidence was clear she testified to it is essential in the first half hour of the trial she admitted i was depressed i wanted to go and buy some myself some things so my bank account went from eleven thousand dollars to six thousand dollars over the last five months and she also testified that she used those funds to pay for her nights out for dinners with friends or her night movies she didn't use them for benny miral purpose and i don't think there is any argument from either party that the marriage should suffer due to a breakdown long before that  from the standpoint of the withdrawal of my mind my concern with mrs hamer's argument with regards to her withdrawal from the kids accounts is this she suggesting we were exploring reconciliation get back together i'm going to take everything out of the new counts and then i'm going to refile two weeks later and he will have no recourse i think obviously their marriage had value ritual broken the fact that they were for in court exploring reconciliation doesn't mean that they reconciled because in fact six weeks later she filed to bring the case back up so i think ultimately i think it's clear that she