makes contributions to the non marital property of one of the two parties what is the law required what is that section require and how should it has been applied to the evidence in this case get to a two way says that coleman bold marital and non merril property shall be treated and it uses the mandatory shall be treated in the following manner in less otherwise agreed by the property makes a contribution to another as space property and contributing this state shall again it is mandatory shall be reimbursed from the state receiving the every case i've read judges justices that's never been put pointed out by any other court that there are too shall in this specific provision in deciding this issue of what type of reimbursement  from the marital properties now in this case virtually all of the property was not marital property used very very little marital property in this seven year marriage specifically as addressed selling the equipment there is an extraordinary number of vehicles that were changed hands substituted whatever during this seven year marriage and it makes that was his father as you'll see from our race and the the record in the case the monies to pay for the mortgages and decrease the mortgage and increase the net equity in each of these non marital properties throughout this seven year marriage came from a bank account called the family expense account and the monies would go through that scenario property out that's where the family  those is in this instance of the trading of vehicles and trucks and other types of equipment as well as the over the road all and all of that money all of it can be raised did not  went to these or as i have to reduce the data and increase mr washburn's equity in each of them totals one hundred and twenty eight thousand seven hundred twenty two dollars and eighty cents eighty nine percent excuse me and if you look at page is the chart that we have presented to the trial court now this court on pages twenty nine dollars and parity they show you our analysis and our financial statement that we that was in the responded introduced as evidence as exhibit or and what's respect to the values that we were criticised criticised or so severely and the phrase financial statement is two hundred and forty seven thousand five hundred interesting laid his take his testimony he said that the whole company was really only worth the three vehicles  still owned at that point and he placed the value at approximately eighty five thousand dollars not to do two hundred and forty seven thousand five hundred dollars he put on his financial say the house he valued at a one hundred and eighty five thousand on it that's correct your honor we believe that the indebtedness was the same this was going on simultaneously judge with the divorce trial and the evidence being presented there and it's my understanding judge and i think our braised demonstrates that that the debt is the same nothing changed except for the value and the trial court didn't never look at that issue and tried to resolve that it all and didn't indicate that it made anything i understand your point if the debt changes it's our understanding that debt did not change it was just a transfer from i each mississippi credit valley to bluegrass to the bluegrass thing of the same properties the same assets and new findings so that's the reason judge justices in certain places i might use the number one hundred and eighty two thousand or i might say at one or two points that the the amount of loss in this case  the reduction adad an increase in equity may well well be above one hundred and eighty two thousand and i think it's something that the court can certainly take a look at and be concerned  about that is the st issue relating to reimbursement and we feel that that was incorrectly decided the nd issue is really a companion issue comes up under justice is under section five bibles three d property as we did not say and in fact what we did say in the phrase that in the st instance the court or this part now has to figure out this reimbursement issue that has to otherwise what the reimbursement amount is that those back under illinois law to the maryland state it doesn't go directly to the opposing party so consequently you can't know what the marital you mr roberts you may respond thank you your honor for the record my things troy roberts i represent the petitioner affably with the washroom and if it pleases the court council i think one of the most important things your honour's to look at here especially given the amount of testimony regarding different values and where money went and what happened is that the the business of buying selling trucks brisance his explanation and his testimony was very clear and very credible that he's in the trucking business and depending on what type of things he s transport he may need a different type of vehicle a different type of trailer so during this relatively short term marriage  what was going on with the trucking business is is just that he was operating a trucking business he testified that the money from that was garnered from destruction business went into a join account it was a business last family account and it not only went to service debt on towards the trucking business but it also provided significant compensation for the marital estate the testimony at trial was that the the  income received in coming in went to pay virtually everything related to debt marital that it paid the bills it paid for clothing it paid for vacations it paid the mortgage t significant thought into its ruling when it told the parties and i was not trial counsel either for this your honour's  but it's part of the record the trial court telling the attorneys that he had worked on this many nights and thought about it and came up with the ford case  that neither neither side had provided for the court and i think rightfully indicated how similar the situation here was to the four case and i've obviously cited that reimbursement there's already been compensation towards the marital estate for the marital state and in this instance i believe there's been significant compensation towards marital state that there is no right for reimbursement and then when what the appellant is is asking for in this case is that in essence i've already been compensated but now i want to have portions of the apple lease non marital property but with no significant argument or no significant contribution to make that argument the issue with the mor building for instance it was under disputed that my client does not own that morton bill that there were issues surrounding the payment but the appell admitted during trial that the mike plane had been pain the five hundred dollars a month to the father that because he could not store them at the myrtle residence you would have to find some place and this with a place convenient place to not only store is equipment but also to work on the vehicles and and his testimony was this also save thousands of dollars a year in being able to were stored and work on the vehicles on the morton building for some reason the athlete appellant excuse me believes that there should be reimbursement back relating to the morton guilty that and that that argument to me just does not make sense because it's not an it's on property that's not owned by my client it's a building that's not on the buy my client is simply a rental place to store whitman and work on equipment but where is the more building mr roberts separate it's a separate piece of ground i think is one of it might be one of those divisions where maybe five acre to a set off from a farmstead i'm not quite sure yeah and if it's on land separate from the the farm that my client doesn't own with his father and that income from that operation as well went into the look at the nelson case i would argue that that case is an opposite to what we have here that that case showed significant contributions from that  the individual act i don't remember if it was the husband or wife to which rebirth meant would be proper well here we have the  we really don't know what happened to income that she had marital income to your earned during the marriage again the testimony of my client was found to be more credible the the income that the appellant received went into her own separate account and there is really no evidence trial as to where that money went the athlete testified again credibly that th paying for everything coming out of either washington trucking or the farm enterprise income from that and i would wait as as both parties testified i think  they spent a lot of money more than times that they made hand for instance and in two thousand and thirteen they had a good year in two thousand and fourteen was the year that my client had to take out thirty six thousand dollars from his for his retirement in order to make ends meet so i believe your honors i spelt it out in my in my brief i think when you look at the case law that deals with this particular section of which mr and it is is indicated it's very clear that if the marital estate has already received s compensation and there's no significant contribution then there is no reimbursement that's required so we would ask the court to affirm the trial court's ruling again i think it was it was taken under consideration given much consideration by the drought court were keen over time in trying to get it right and i believe that he did of either what this as anything to do with this if i think that the statute says very plainly if money comes from want to state and goes to a different it on the evidence justices on the evidence and what amount was paid from the family expense five hundred dollars on the morton building whatever the amount was there is no dispute about any of those numbers and it's not really proud of this decision so i think that the facts are very very similar in terms of payments on the mortgage for a house for equipment that was made a mistake but it happened for multiple years in a row and i would submit to the court you can't claim you don't have an ownership interest in a piece property at least you can't claim that to the i it's the i was just going to say that the other issue i raise and it's it's well addressed in both race is it dissipates an issue and as to that mr washburn testified that the marriage began to break down in november and december of two thousand and four as a consequence that's the starting point we filed a notice of intent to claim dissipation which shift the under the statute to mr washburn it was his burden  thousand dollars dumped trailer that he forgot about and remember during the trial just came back to his recollection and he spends all this money for a four year period every one of those