taxes they had not as i said my dream reared their head so there's no dispute that these things were not discussed at the trial i was there was a motion to reconsider focused there was a motion for consider that was a while but then that was this is the nd is the generally speaking in the motion to reconsider the issue of tax consequences was a play was in the motion itself the transcript of the exchange between  the trial judge and myself on the presentation of that motion is in the record what's not in the record which is body language facial expression tone of voice after presenting that motion it was clear that it was not going to be well received it was never heard on the merits it was never argued brief at sephora i discussed it with my client new term and that that was not going to be the best course of the trial court's decision this wasn't going to be an evidentiary motion to reconsider there wasn't going to be any further testimony no additional facts nothing to reconsider in that area it was strictly a legal issue that did not exist until the judge made his decision and i don't believe force there's a case out there the says differently than that's what it said but i don't believe that by by putting something in a motion and the terms that's the best way to try and resolve the issue but that wasn't going to happen so with my import with my discussion we decided what point decided to go ahead and just withdraw that motion in go to panel that said he made the wrong decision so if i can present it moves can still bring it here and it's just a legal argument why why why do i have to present it at all why can't i just say i don't think it's going to and one of the conditions is that the obligation would stop on the death of the recipient which in this case would not the best of right so my client based on that war could not deduct that pa financial needs thirty percent of it more or less was federal tax liability i need between one hundred and fifty dollars each month to pay federal taxes based on the maintenance that i receiv well the judge made his determination based on her need so you know more to be made answer and gross love so to help her me in part a federal tax liability you need which now no reason is uncertain that given the age of your client that he would not be alive to pay that amount over there period of time if it were ten years let's say did on behalf of your client but the trial court also expressed the i would say considered and solid reason for awarding maintenance in gross a lump sum as opposed to periodic maintenance there's a couple of responses to that your honor number one of the the why only clear that the preferred method of maintenance i deductible to him now what the case law says is that if you're going to change from that method you're going to change from the preferred monthly maintenance method that there should be exceptional circumstances were there any circumstances here that you just about the age of the husband health issues aren't those legitimate considerations i would say your honor that those are considerations i would not say that those are exceptional circumstances there is no but i think i think it's a erroneous assumption to state that because somebody sixty nine years old that they may not live very long that may be true it may not be true but there is no evidence presented that would allow of the judge to make down a little bit in terms of its productivity is the way i read that not necessarily that he would retire whatever that may be true year our own but what the record also shows that when you look go especially in the financial  he distributors may have been slowing down mr benoit had his fingers in so ho other businesses in other states i don't recall a thing from the record that indicates that that he was slowing down his business pursuits or  have five or four factors did not justify the maintenance of six thousand and one for ten years but that aren't five whole four factors really just a guy to determine whether or not maintenance is appropriate decision you can consider the factors and still make an error in your decision re can still abuse your discretion so my argument is that when the court looks at all these factors collectively it  decide on considering case of whether that wife is able to reason we support herself in leaves of dollars instead the court is charged with determining whether she can support herself have the standard of living enjoyed during the very important factor i think it's one of the ones that the court should consider an ok answer regulated nutshells that to support what i would consider to be a high standard of living now we look at what's in the record they had a couple of nice houses and nice peoples miss cool still has nice houses and nice vehicles and they're all painful she's living just like she was living when she was married the judge said in his own words that in his findings that these people lived a conservative lifestyle they did not spend money on lavish vacations are they did not engage in fine dining so on the one hand the judge uses the standard to support your work but that language is anything but a high standard of living is a very conservative standard of living and in my argument to the panel is that she's still living at that same standard they have she has a very nice house a nice giggles but they didn't travel they  i'm very frugal she said that a few times so she is living at the same standard because it really wasn't that high when they were married and just because the business was worth millions of dollars and was growing that doesn't mean at the trial despite what he says about not coming up until after the trial that issue could have been anticipated at the trial and should have been so that evidence would have been presented  then when it came to mind to to raise the issue the how it failed to carlos fail to then present any argument when he had the opportunity to instead voluntarily with drew emotion so there was this nd opportunity he should be allowed to have a that needed to have been presented and i believe it was touched on earlier by that one of the justices that we don't we don't have the numbers we can't even or the nobody can calculate what it was what the impact was so there's no record before this court as to what the consequence was so it can't be estate that any tax consequences would be insignificant but again i don't believe we can even go so and the  marriage that that the wife did contribute despite what he said by by karl she did contribute to the to the business e goes on and on and on in my group but in addition to that some of the other factors and and this gets into my argument which i won't go there yet but my argument for why the property distribution is unfair it's it's the the financial resources of these parties that exist today after the after the marriage carlos and there is far greater the vast disparity in the parties economic situation after the divorce thirteen million dollars that's that's the difference if you're saying twenty  a twenty million five hundred and seventy seven thousand vicki before that the disposition that had to two million one hundred and thirty five thousand dollars and then after that estate went down to approximately eighteen million vickie's we're going to allow four million seven hundred thousand and it is that difference after the division after the property division and after the payment had the opportunity to better herself or get a degree again talking about the amounts of meat she probably would not have the same situation to earn what carlos but on very good charitable work during this time and she  but i still feel that the the trial or not it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to hear that much weight to those factors when it should have been giving far more weight to the economic circumstances  and the trial court should have a word minimum of sixty percent to vicki and forty percent carlson just the opposite of the trial and i don't have it was great and he argued with me you can see that in the transcript and i don't see a procedural difference between taking it to the anything shut down by the trial judge or seeing the writing on the so if you don't even have to file it in the st place and it's simply a legal argument with us what are the text says well if you pay seven hundred and twenty thousand dollars it is six thousand dollars of them of the payments you're going to get on the most important factor in his decision and that was which parties contributed to the success of the business which by implication helped create this ten million dollar merrill state and i think that the court analyze that correctly when it followed in hell that carlos was the major contributor to the estate the motivation and the driving that's not the same as working there four thousand and sixty or eighty hours a week travelling pounding the pavement getting customers building relationships building value it doesn't equate yes but for her discovery maybe we're not staying here so she gets some credit but as it's not the kind of credit that you can see in titles for fifty percent the real hard work took place after the business was of the person ok but there's also the contribution category and if you're going to take it by a plethora of mental health issues which if that's what was going on that's what was going on but if you're if you're that debilitated by that that you know you can't work the last one thousand two hundred and fourteen years how could you say that but before that before the divorce i was very instrumental even though i was dealing with all the same mental health think despite no expert testimony or corroboration anything like that i think we can all see that there were some mental health issues but that's one factor and the main factor i think the court is looking at is the contribution