thank you god i was quiet please the court counsel this is kind of unusual in some respects a fascinating case through everything that went on but on the record the common law records extremely lengthy but there are just several specific issues that we've raised on appeal and a couple i'd like to specifically speak to on the oral argument on behalf of the husband  first one deals with the question of reimbursement to the marriage for mortgage payments that were made on a farm loan and this was regarding property that mr obama had purchased initially before the marriage merrill state almost four hundred thousand dollars in payments made over the years scuse me considering that a in essence a contribution to the non marital state that should be reimbursement the court found that there was the two hundred thousand dollars loan that there was about one hundred thousand dollar balance allowing at the time of the divorce so there for a day three hundred seventy eight thousand dollars in payments and that was simply figured out by taking the court properly recognised that as as reimbursement so that credit was given by the trial court but the rest of it which is that it was essentially all the interest was ordered testified yes that's true as it is i don't think it was disputed your honor and i the court i know made several references throughout its life the opinion to the fact that the farming operations then the road repair business which mr obama also ran generated virtually all the end for the parties during the marriage and there wasn't any i don't think there was any clear cut break down of how much money the farming operation made or specific that much money was made from these parcels but i don't believe there was any  there was additional money made that was then put back into the marital account and used for you know day to day expenses for the family all if that order or it was made to the trial or think was raised or considered by the trial court but i think that's a fair enough principle based on the facts that it's not something that that has to be disregarded because the waiver purposes the way the waiver principle it's out based on the facts of the case and i think that alone again when the court is saying the non marital party or the nonmetal state asked reimburse the marital state for these loan payments based and that that's the argument that you consider if there was substantial benefit to the marriage if the marriage was already compensated i think that's when you get into the prussian the court is asking with regard to whether the land generator enough money to a somewhat some more better a little more cattle kadish or deals with the marital home and there's actually three separate points in argument parts two three and four that we've raised with regard to the court's treatment of the home mr obama did maintain in the case that the marital home of the property which was located in addition to the outbuildings from which the road repair business and the farming operations were all that the property in fact moron to the father that it had been owned by the husband's mother and left to the father as trustee in a will of the will of the will which was submitted the quarterly on when there was some fighting on temporary issues also indicates that the remainder interest of the trust is to go to mr bahman it is my client the the rice position as it as i understood it at trial was that once it became clear the title the property was in the father was that the money that the parties had invested in and refurbishing the home in the our buildings some eight to eleven years prior to trial was dissipated the court did not find that to be dissipated and i don't think could and that the buildings the home itself and the outbuildings were personal property then valued in the outbuildings that i forget the exact figure but it was somewhere on the six hundred fifty thousand dollar range because that was the evidence that the right brought as to how much they had spent on remodeling and building  while the land at the six hundred fifty thousand dollar figure and ordered bat or a letter to the building's on the homeless personal property to the mayor or personal property to the husband and then awarded a three hundred thousand dollar home that the parties built by agreement during the divorce case for the right to live in them paid for out of marital funds and had a free aspects to ownership of land and buildings that in which the buildings are automatically treated as part of the real estate if you're talking about sales of property if you're talking about foreclosures liens  judgments the there's just no place that i can find where homes and buildings are generally treated as personal property as opposed to being part of the real estate which they are tash i also suggest that for the court to determine that the building is on the father's property a personal property of bananas wife without the father being embedded in the case for the purpose of making that determination and being having having the opportunity to be heard of some all just can't be done that mean the ruling of the trial court obviously has between the that's not binding on the father and the father still owns the property i don't think anyone else is going to agree with the concept that the father owns the land and the husband owns the buildings so i just don't think back be done  think realistically but should a apin and could have happened and did here too and i still not sure why it didn't is that the poor here are kind of look at the fact that the husband does have a non marital interest residual interest or remainder interest in the property through the cross them through us mother's will that the court could say ok we're going to that's whatever interest the parties have in the property off or under some thousand dollars on the i think house i think you could raise that question but i also think that the i mean i think if you look at the appraisal you can tell that it covers the house mean that there was some there's there's no question that we're not suggesting that dead so there is some additional value that has to be considered there but to go back and add that there's i'm sure many many instances of where people put money into a home that they're not going to get back out of it for one reason or another in any circumstance and then you you take into account the real estate recession that happened in two thousand and eight several years after the and it's that we're still feeling the effects of even now i think and and say yes if it could say yes we think this house is worth more than the other appraiser feels based on these factors that south korea i think that would that would have made some sounds but for the  to say well the one difference there i would suggest your honor is that this was a the threat thousand dollars was spent a year before or so before the divorce trial  o it's a much more of f in fact i don't think either party contested that that was a fair value for the house which had just been bill that and putting the property on which it was situated  this six hundred thousand dollars spent on remodeling and building the parties paid nothing for twenty nine years eleven in this house the very very end of the case then there were some rent charge to two  interest to the husband which is non marital that to the extent you want to say fine that's his non marital property now you get to the question of reimbursement the money that they paid whether it was whether it was mortgage payments or whatever but in this case it was  the cost of the remodeling even if you take the entire amount the six hundred some thousand dollars over twenty nine years out works out to about eighteen thousand eight hundred dollars a month and if you're paying that much for a place to live and a place to our businesses and run your business out of which generate all the money for the virtually all the money for the parties to live on and raise their children for all these years and to build up the other assets that that seems pretty reasonable to me i think the and do it and if so whether or not there was to take that next step whether or not the marriage had been fully compensated or substantially caffein stated under cross for the use and i think  has when you look at it from that standpoint so that the husband keeps his non marital staff and the wife gets her house to the extent there needs to be some financial equalization there fine  or not i mean i think the court and its russian might have said you get ballasts and you just get to keep it because of other financial disparities that the feud between the parties and but to but to to do avoid a trial court get i think was just and actually by relying on a video case i believe taken an approach that neither party had suggested and that was on necessary and creates these all these questions difficult to say there was an interest i agree there was some interesting problem is he also part of their land in those during those years as well we don't know whether this is even the original loan that existed at the time and they're talking about that's what i'm saying the problem is you didn't interest paid at no point was it ever delineated or broken out how much went to each one that's the problem i think the court said what we were fighting is your basically your argument because that wasn't broken  isle buildings has merit as property owned by he and his wife which is good for thirty two my client had no knowledge the house was not in joint name and belong to both parties until some time after the divorce when his father filed a motion to kick her out of her own home that was the first no she ever had that this film this house was not owned by both of them at that point in time we then found out that the father who is not the owner of the land the father's the c trustee of the trust that owns the land when the mother my client said mr mr romack when his mom died she transferred her real state into a trust with her husband is the trustee with her husband with ronald as the sole beneficiary that matters brother who is a handicapped young man but run basically is the sole better picture of the trust it is however management and the father receives the income from get there is any income et business destroyed property expensive for a generation from the property of the right all of this began at basically a month before the divorce the business which made a million dollars ninety thousand  profit individually for wasn't two years before within a year of the divorce story was bankrupt the money was transferred from the property and head to trial judge not granted my motion to subpoena the records of the father we would never have been able to prove that the trial court went through every tax return every check every deposit slip but the father to determine whether it was relevant he then allowed me to use to it and we suddenly found all of the money transferred out of the business six hundred thousand dollars when my client thought it was in joint name she would never walk as he agreed to a loan to give money to his father his father to six hundred thousand dollars already spent in their life to build this house those outbuildings and by the way these of the things are magnificent this is not been there many times these are never sent out buildings which are presently being used by mere happenstance by the company that took over from the company that my client bankrupted the person who owns that copy now is his best friend and the guy who ran the company directly underneath it that's also one of the things the court found happened here it is an applicable in any way not to reimburse my client for the expenditure of these funds if we should be added here is clearly grounds stu that there's been filing with the bank a month before the divorce it was proper to go into he and his wife for him to come in today and try and say that he's being maltreated in any respect when he is attempt to destroy the family business  acreage was involved in the appraisal of that house too he never at any point considered the larger portion of that land of ours the house and the sheds and completely left that out the case i think his findings of his lies his misrepresentations his transfers of money underneath to various people going back to his day and it's all clear what happened here it's just nice that once in a while a good kind winds i think the most recent case which i filed by which was published after my opinion which is the it cried in kind of case i think solves that issue that it's the same basic rule as it is proposed prenuptial agreements this clearly was no it no disclosure of assets she was counsel she doesn't remember signing it and even he says she just cited threw it out and said fine so i don't think there's any real issue there that exists anymore because that's all i have much grist for the questions findings on this resolve any questions of the court was was asking the clerk found that there was a two hundred thousand dollars down the payments were made thirteen thousand dollars plus a year one one annual payment per year which resulted in the toll payment three hundred seventy eight thousand five five hundred dollars one a fifty dollars and that there was that the loan balance was just over one hundred thousand dollars at the time of trial that the court made those findings and fairly extensively reviewed what happened with the different parcels of real estate sale i don't think there's any question that there was a h honour's the why we've made in our brief i think is just that of the kind of willy nilly set well that the seven hundred dollars because that's what we were doing at the beginning of the case i don't think that when you when you look at the relative lack about it and some of the true rights needs the fact that the court did find that her basic income covered her basic needs the fact that by the time we want to trial my client was was running three thousand dollars a month working for his dad had lost his business that generated the road repair business that generated the back of the family and had previously by an agreed order sold his interest in the farm equipment that he on with relatively little ability to earn money at least at that point yeah see out a track record of running a lot of money when he was running his own business and he was doing the farming but that wasn't the situation anymore and had been for a while by the time of trial and for the for  just a really no we say ok you can you can afford to pay fifty seven hundred dollars without taking into account the usual factors and particularly without somebody more detail as to reasonable living expenses on the part of the right i just i just think that was kind of a knee jerk reaction i think counsel was able to paint a pretty dastardly picture of mr obama through the trial and mr circumstances by the way with respect to this the ownership of the house i don't believe there's there was out of us that my client ever represented specifically to anyone that his wife had an ownership interest in the house i do believe there was a financial document where he listed the house as an ass out but not specifically that that her name was on the title and the first the civically found that he had told her there  the home from his mom when she passed a right not there was no finding by the court or even mentioned by the court of any representation by my client that would have made her think that she had an ownership so it was strictly the question as to whether the house was in the fathers name of the trust name or rather in fact the husband owned it outright as an inheritance from his mother that was the that was the uncertainty and i agree that there may have been some misunderstanding the wife and the op because of what the husband said but never that she had an owner's actual owners