next case on for argument is chrissy versus and business we believe the court errored in a number of respects first because it did not recognize appropriately that this was in the context of mr proctor providing mr kress he with complete generous personal support for years before and years after those services were provided without any expectation of contributions by mr cressy so that when mr cressy admittedly initiated this service is a volunteer and never said anything to the contrary for the next fourteen years mr proctor every reason to assume in all good conscience that though those services were volunteered and as set forth in the illustration to to section twenty eight of the statement of restitution which both parties agree the restatement of restitution here would govern in vermont where the ramada law is not fully developed that's an important consideration that you would presume the services to be gratuitously  provided in a situation of the affluent lifestyle enjoyed with absolutely no obligation to contribute so did judge sessions get it wrong as a matter of law i believe he got that wrong as a matter of law he also has to do it has he guided by vermont law and sort of domestic relations issues he relied heavily on harman the rodgers of amman supreme court case which doesn't address this context of the completely supported relationship and the gratuitous volunteering of services now that's never then disputed after that i mean it's just it's a different context it's different example under the restatement of restitution and we think that's the closest circumstance to this circumstance we think the court also erred in not recognizing that mr proctor was entitled to an offset for this for the support he continued to provide mr cressy long after the business was close twenty eight is all about non marital relationships and how you deal with restitution is in that context it's not intended to be a general provision for equitable distribution between unmarried parties its inten correct me and i mean i understand judge sessions to have looked at the text of section twenty eight and viewed mr cressy as contributions to mr proctors business working full time from the was what was wrong with that determination well if you look at what material benefit to a business is generally it's something not where you just are doing administrative tasks through and this was a business that was running out running down which was in it last years throughout this period he did nothing to change the business to improve the business he he did it in a straight of services like a group very good office manager would have undoubtedly value but the question is then did he even assuming judge sessions is right that he contributed value to the business as an entity the question then under the restatement of restitution which is focused in the section on a specific asset that you contributed to did then the other party unreasonably retain the value that was contributed and here that was not the case because the business closed the business mr proctor closed the business in two thousand and eight at which point it had no further value he did that order to care for his dying father mr cressy continued to live with mr proctor for the next nearly five years during which time the seven hundred eighty thousand dollars that was remaining in the business his bank account was spent on both parties poor worked so mr proctor did not retain the asset unjustly for his own benefit he used it for both of their benefits now judge sessions appeared to believe that if you went into this the issue of the offset for that further spork you would be stuck going into things the courts would prefer not to do which is what was the overall burden in benefit between the parties in their relationship but i think with a restatement actually offers us a way of moving from that to looking at carter has a summary sheet of the funds used during those years for mr krevin benefit and add up to well in excess of the amount that that the experts both said mr cressy services had been worth before that taking into account or at least losses he suffered before that from not having a cash salary the court did recognize that he had been offsetting benefits during the time he was working but then made those benefits irrelevant for the following period so mr proctor is essentially being penalized for heat for having the asset and using it for mr cressy is benefit and now he's being told that you get no credit for that now you have to compensate mr cressy in addition  we think that's that's quite unfair mr cressy also sat on his rights for an extended period of time he knew of course he said at the beginning and this is when he went on full time work which is what the judge felt w equivalent of making him a non volunteer he said i was in a committed relationship i had free time on my hands i was glad to help out with the situation i had my own money which he retained throughout the relationship i didn't really need a paycheck it was it's a natural thing for me to help out with my partners business he never he knew he wasn't being paid he never said a word about compensation which is in contrast to all the cases that the plaintiffs cited in their brief where the  compensation was a flash point in the relationship and then when the business closed and mr proctor spent the assets down until they were completely exhausted and he was out of money that's when  claim so which means that the only way mr proctor could satisfy a judgment for mr christie's claims would be to to dismantle the farm he worked so hard to achieve rather than having reserved money from the outset to satisfy this claim that his partner was keeping secret from him so we think the court erred in ignoring all those factors that need to be taken into account along with the substantial nature of the value of the services thank you  quantum recovery i've got the stark example of somebody who worked fourteen years forty hours a week for the company at the end of the relationship i've got five hundred dollars mr across his pocket i've got close to two million dollars in mr proctors proctors pocket and i've got the understanding from mr cressy that he wasn't simply working for room and board he was working towards this mutual business family business and that he would be left out in the cold and so when you look at all those factors was it an abuse of discretion i want to address those little out of turn for me but in terms of what the attorney for mr proctor was talking about in terms of depletion of the asset or fully consume the asset that's just not true synergy advertising close in two thousand and eight that's correct the bank accounts of synergy are depleted that's correct but what they overlook is what judge sessions found and the evidence absolutely supports is that mr proctor sitting on one point six million dollars worth of real property a bunch of which was released per hour calculations eight hundred thousand six hundred thousand of which was purchased with synergy profits the fact that they're no longer sitting in a synergy bank account doesn't mean they don't exist you take the synergy profits earned while mr cressy is working forty hours a week you go ahead and roll those into real property versus a bank account versus an investment as long as one of those are still alive you still have an asset you remind me where in the record i argument frankly i do want to point out that they didn't defend this saying there is no asset left the reason this came into play is that we also had an implied contract claim saying we want half of it and therefore we had to go through the math of what half meant and so that earned from synergy after january first one thousand nine hundred seven and what it entailed and this is relatively confusing and it isn't part of judge sessions opinion but it entailed looking at hand written notes mr proctors wealth back in there was a discussion back in one thousand nine hundred eighty six in terms of whether or not mr cressy had obtained partnership status where mr cressy testified that mr parker referred to him as a partner in the business and he understood it to be a partner in the business and he understood it to be an affirmation of what he was already understanding which is that this is a family business and working together found that that was not sufficient to support contract law claims wasn't sufficient to support partnership claims but was sufficient was one of the pieces of the puzzle in terms of am i going to give quantum recovery here which had me thinking about magic words you know you are a here which is a blessing and a curse sometimes here thankfully we're blessed because we have harmon versus rogers which is one hundred percent support of the claim here harmon versus rogers there the claimant work for six months cites to harmon on illustration number nine again looks at this example and says ok threshold question do we have domestic relations services or something beyond that and the nice easy part about this case is i couldn't get  terms of something beyond that i've got forty hours a week fourteen years working in running and assisting to run and at one point running the operations of this business you then ask is it ethical to go and retain it and we have two pieces of that we've got closer to him in dollars and mr proctors pocket in terms of the property that and we got the fact that our gentleman toiled for the number of years thinking it was a family business finding out he was legally wrong and he should be you know should recover on that front nothing in the findings of fact that takes away his argument that essentially this fourteen years was overseeing the demise of this business eking out of this last profits and then there's a substantial period where there was a continued support of mr cressy and in those are wrong your honor ninety four to two thousand and eight biggest year there to do it three million dollars years one was in one nine hundred ninety nine after they moved to vermont so the sense that they just wound it down from ninety four is completely incorrect in terms of whether or not there should be an offset whether or not there should be an offset because the business close in two thousand and eight but just sessions did is said the same way vermont law doesn't allow recovery for domestic services we're not going to allow an offset for domestic expenditures we have a relationship happening and we're not going to go ahead and impose an offset that is if you start getting into that offset analysis then you're going to get me to try to my guys labor on the farm except or in terms of keeping the animals so from outlaw keeps that distinction we're going to go back to what happened between ninety four and two thousand and eight and in ninety four two thousand and eight the nice part about this is frankly we weren't overly greedy we didn't overreach the damages we asked for the echoed images we asked for take out housing you know take out food it's just the savings amount and both experts end up agreeing on that so that isn't double dipping to us and in terms of the fully supported aspect of it there's no line of cases that says fully supported means no point in maryland and the irony of the fully supported is the funds that were being used to support were on the shoulders of my guy in large part he was working in the news creating the synergy proceeds so to somehow call that a barrier to recovery doesn't make sense when you look closely at the cases versus rogers doesn't discuss it but thankfully again we have a mark  she's fully supported there's no money that's coming in from her harm and the persons running the day to day operations of the store full time tell me that there's another source of income that's coming in and the fully supported line doesn't exist in the law the only case that it's kind of talked about between the two of us is mitchell versus moore and mitchell versus morris kind of fun to look at because it's so in apples it it's so in aps it i've got an intermediate pennsylvania court i've got the fact that they apply a presumption of gratuitous giving between agreement and awarded an amount that was based on their first expert's report which was subsequently revised to reflect mr press he's actually administrative and not executive functions  as to whether mr cressy asked to be a partner that change from thirty to forty yes objects a big difference in the damages he with mr cressy was the only employee when they is that true mr procter works in the business as well the discretion of the district court i think there was no evidence to support the just records conclusion both experts agree that the thirty ish thousand was the more appropriate figure and judge the shins went for the forty ish thousand based on a misinterpretation of developed that understanding based on this conversation in which mr proctor used that term about his domestic partner as to whether we can start looking at the real estate as where the money from synergy went as the repository of synergies valued the court did find that synergy profits went into the real estate also found that the proceeds of mr proctors home in long beach went into real estate into the real estate that mr proctor had substantial savings  christie's arrival synergy was a thriving business with its best year before mr cressy ever became involved but if you look at fifty five sixty two and five sixty three of the record that's where mr proctor was making his notes and unfortunately few records survive here because of arson fire where they were stored but these notes were made by mr proctor to assess what he had in liquid assets at the time he was buying the vermont farm and it shows a million dollars in cash exclusive of the synergy bank account which always included as he testified a half million dollars of his initial capital contribution to the business all before mr cressy so that's a million and a half basically which was more than the purchase price of the farm in two thousand in one nine hundred ninety eight already existing then now they've tried to say the capital contribution no longer counts because he sent it out and then you know was replenishing it with new monies that came in there trying to they've tried to say that the c d s that mr procter computed as part of his assets were bought with recent synergy profits but it's useful to keep in mind that the time this purchase was made initially that mr cressy had conceived himself as being a partner as being as being having an interest in this business for all of a little over a year mr proctor was a man some wealth before he ever met mr cressy he had the assets to buy this farm the court may know findings about precisely how much of what went where i think if we're looking at the way the restitution same investigation is that up we're looking at whether there was a specific asset to which mr cressy contributed value the court's findings on that were that he did to synergy and we should look at the synergy revenues which bank account which was totally exhausted boarding these two people for the next five years