he had a bacterial infection on a c diff that was causing him significant problems he was treating for mental health issues and he was involved in a rather stressful job selling life insurance to other ves us factors are age health moves in retiring timing of retirement the ability to pay more because after retirement and the ability or spouse to provide for themselves the top of my head that any of the cases that i cited were stashed or i think they were all around the law i could be mistaken but massachusetts and for the follow laws similar to california stating that even if this reduces me earnings of the other spouse as a matter of law in those states we're not going to say that you can't retire and even though you read that even have to keep on working a number of other scenes tennessee colorado minnesota kentucky they all have  proclaimed rules but what they say is that really great deference to someone that retires at that age i will submit to the court that the bright morning rule would make the most sense because there's always going to be an we don't run into situations where in one part of the state someone says sixty eight yes that's a customary tyron age another part sixty six that's not that's not good enough in the cases that i cited from the other jurisdictions show that there can be a short term marriages that actually does bring up an interesting point though about the calculation of them the maiden's period because what happened in this case to change subjects is the court foll not to happen i don't know my client doesn't know my client is likely opens himself to a contempt citation regardless of what he does on the day that he stops paying he's going to say well this says it doesn't extend but of course the other to result in cases on both sides work seems unfair the supreme court noted that especially in the moral case in which room party heading under valuable pension and the other party says while i should get a discount based on what social security would have paid in or just said no you can't do that i think obviously i can see that that's going to be harsh in certain cases but we don't have the ability to tell congress or change the laws that say the legal process can basically runs through all the fiber for a factors factor under five before it i consider the realistic and present present future earning capacity be partners and then it goes on to explain his findings in that regard he also describes the impairment of the present future earning capacity of the party now on the issue of maintenance in general course as counsel correctly indicated is it's an abuse of discretion standard what counsel did not go through was what really amounts to the overwhelming evidence that employment status i'm not going to use the phrase retirement retirement is not what happened in this case and i'll go through that first of all the court made a very specific finding and i don't have this habit in my cases very often work or actually makes a finding that  in regard to when it occurred mr woolsey announced in open court on the day that the property settlement was entered into on the record that he was going to retire the next day immediately face of a man who is subject to a temporary order of support he was a filing with petition to modify the temporary support he's threatening to retire well as it turns out this was he did not retire mr was he changed his status with level the claim that well i do what private says you should do when you want to retire from the trial and this is what i did and that's why i don't consider retire unfortunately that does not offer mr w shield because mr woolsey did not in fact follow that process that process provides for an ongoing source of income and infinitely on the one source of income for all the financial associates who wants to wind down their practice it does not require that person to divest themselves of all of their book of business their clients of which mr morsi had approximately four hundred it does not require that individual to divest themselves of their marriage sequence which or mr rosie claimed that well i couldn't get any compensation from my partner for those because the law prohibits it but both mr was in his partner acknowledged that in exchange for those mannish be quiet fees it was he wasn't as the opportunity to enter into what are called split he contrasts with his daughter if he wishes to do so and that's typically the process that people that is individuals use when they're trying to wind down their practice they bring someone in whom it lowers so what we have here is the trial court had ample evidence to show that this wasn't in fact a retirement that this was just a change of status the quicker also looked at well what is the timing of this change of status what is going on here what we've got a individual status that health insurance was gone because he no longer wasn't tied up to insurance based on being an assistant associate financial associate as opposed to a financial associate are going to more about that in a m retirement plans were in relation to the fact that they bought an expensive home it's been a considerable amount of money on a home so got a mortgage on a home and it was of own them the testimony was that as  soon as the previous trial graduated from high school and started attending college that day which coincided with the maturity of the note on this mortgage they would sell the house then move before a move to somewhere warm i he suffered from anxiety or depression and the medical records indicated that was negative for anxiety and depression and there was no evidence other than mr woolsey testimony presented that there was any type of psychological problem going on but according to what mr morsi apparently told his own doctor he was not suffering those problems as of as of the end of two thousand and fifteen as as he was going to thank you for on the issue of imposing a the trial court had plenty of evidence before the show that this individual's change of status was in bad faith was specifically intended to avoid his obligation to provide support for his daughter and his in his  soon to be ex wife both from the standpoint of his obligations under the temporary order in from the potential obligation going forward certainly for child support and possibly for maintenance as far as the very misleading if he's a statutory employee he reports part of his wages from the same source as deputy wages any as in the nine years the ten ninety nine wages are already reduced by his voluntary retirement contributions his voluntary health  there was evidence on every one of them is or warming in this case there's simply nothing to suggest that the imputation of income was inappropriate there was evidence of intentional manipulation of income the fact that mr woolsey gave up one hundred percent of whatever he was going to bring him to his part business partner the fact that he managed clients the fact that he brought his daughter unequivocal evidence of that the trial  doubt as far as the means beginning to ration periods we've gone into the wrath of i'm going to be further other than to say that with respect to determination date the court said two years nine months so the court doesn't terminations which the court would be in total as you heard the new woman statute because it's a marriage of less than two years the court found that that would not be appropriate in this case based upon its consideration the five or forty factors which are so worth in the transcript this is a case where because of mrs wilson's needs because of her potential because of mr was his potential resumption of income production even his means to do so in his need to do so in light of his income versus his