believe that in this particular case in fact a thirty year marriage in which the testimony provide showed that the acquisition of the property during the marriage was not clearly tied into what mr wentworth came into the marriage with and instead of having the presumption as opposed  i don't find in the prenup that says we are going to continue to keep these to keep our lives separate in that way but we came into the marriage when yes it's going to remain america but property and there has been no evidence that that was done with one piece of property now the fact that the man put his own mr winthrop put his own name on this property as the so it's very clear that what he did after within the first six years of the marriage was to take the income from the farm that was worked by both of  and that is with the presumption is about he had the obligation to show that it was purchased from his own friend ok i'm looking at the pre marriage agreement warm they both agree that if they should acquire properly it's going to cummins with right of survivorship the map property show belong to the survivor so it sounds like any property that they would be buying during the course of the marriage that was to go to the other would be bought as joint i'm i mean i'm just looking at this and it seems to me th rides the presumption that you're talking about that in the marriage any property that's acquired would be marital property and there is another paragraph in here that i find very few using and i don't know exactly what it means your honor may yes i found that the that are this item seven is the joint why because there's testimony in there that it didn't come out that she when you take a look at number six third sentence against the family support all the family support and expenses long as he's financially able but he didn't the testimony was in that she had paid her own she had to pay her own trip expenses she had to buy own clothes she there was also evidence from her that it just didn't end up being worth it because he didn't let it go now and they were dealing with something here more than somebody that married in one nine hundred eighty there is a lot of different cultural things that have happened since then but i believe that he did not he didn't have them six fully and that when he went to purchase property which was marital property just because he put it in his own house did not mean that it was not there or that there is case law on that m but if it is a contract i just i don't know how to reconcile and i guess my other problem is who has the burden of it with regard to marital property i mean your client is claiming that this form property is marital property but as near as i can figure out her claim is all based on some kind of speculation that he had exhausted all of his own personal money and therefore he must have used marital money or marital property in order to be able to buy this farm but there's no evidence so i just don't know where the where the don't remember i had it may have been that he wasn't sure on the things like that he was ninety three yet and had to yes around him that you asked about the who's whose job is it those have not then and unless those are not there anymore they are going but if they are  the money from that if you know what and i don't know did he have another in i mean what what what are they used to live what were the how are the bills paid and in i guess the presumption seemed to go to the wrong person because there is that d that says markopolos this property that was all there was to it nobody said well end that is way you're right say there's a there is a difference in the eighty and the hero first i think there's something respectful that we have for people who take that and say for better or worse all those old words that i don't even know whether they're part of a marriage ran out and when she finally left it was because of her that is something that i don't think a court can just say well she should've gotten out back in eighty three you're a jury in one or two days after marriage that wasn't the way things were and this i wouldn't say but what i'm saying that she knew that things were not being shared equally that things were being held jointly and she didn't do  do whatever she wanted and she did very well with that because at the end of the one of the last hearings she gave evidence that her work was not less than three hundred fifty thousand dollars she went in with thirty one thousand dollars she did well she said  way in their age doing their own investing he's paying all the living expenses and they come when they want to do is sign whatever he going to do there is some made wills and revocable living trust for themselves as the grand course they put goes into effect and then they transfer both of them all of their separate property into their own yes and she signed off on it yes but was that done for the purpose of dividing a property or was that done for the purpose of you know or overwhelming trust which is done for the purpose of property acquired after the marriage that is in the nature of him i mean he certainly had routes that he harvested in the hearers subsequent to the marriage that there i don't see anything how we're going to treat that i mean i've seen marital freedom prenup that said that any income derived in you know that from my efforts remains mine i mean to say that you maintain a separate bank account is all well and good but it doesn't change the nature of that being miracle property from the day you marry going forward whether you have all the title from my cars in family support i don't see that where they say and everything that i am from the state forward remains my not subject to the marital state and i am not i mean i don't think that there is a problem with contracting for they out if it if it's done properly i just that i'm struggling with that part  because because the when the largest not favor these things yet we can contract for them but the contract needs to specify you know everything about that that's going to be derived in you know the year is nineteen eighty moving forward  there's a sentence here that says they both also have really no i'm sorry they both agree that if either of them becomes unhappy enough with the marriage to thirty legal proceedings for separation or to because he used marital assets to buy it seems to me that her problem is that she didn't prove that if i'm not seeing that there's anything wrong for asking for could you explain to me what eight means i've read it several times and i have no clue what the s that was that she had a very nice job and before they married he made it clear to her that he would not she would not be doing him any favors if you continue with a career so he wanted her told she had taken food out to the farmers and people working in the fields and she drove the trucks and things but isn't that what a farm wife and even was talking about her being a housewife pay for many things within the house carpeting she bought her own clothes she did these things because he did not provide for them does that change the whole the ameri all we're asking for is to recognize that whatever was purchased during the marriage and cannot be traced back as the court is right this thing cannot be definitely