decision regarding the division of the property on reasons he wrote was against the manifest whether the evidence at least to fifty percent of the back real estate he believes that he proved by clear and convincing evidence as to that fifty perry said it's going to put the property in cantor's name to ensure that his children receive the property if something happened at the time harry had four children three word else one was twelve years old harry had been married two previous times kindred been married three previous times what they say about the possibility of getting a divorce no nothing was said and most people when they're get married don't talk away well at the time people get married they are presumably in love with each other but that doesn't mean they're completely in the hammer to the percent of the property and she would get together fifty percent harry said that was not the great myth that you claim it was she would ensure that the children would get one hundred percent of the property and this is very similar to the well second case that i in that the reason he transferred to property into the name of his wife was so that in the event something happened to him she would not have the difficulty that he had when ever his wife let me ask a question he thinks that there's an oral agreement regarding his death she thinks there's an oral agreement regarding his yeah neither of those agreements are the same and there isn't a death  twelve kendra had no children these party said then just before all the money that came the purchase of probably came from harry's non marital mother's trust and his brother each got an equal amount from the trust if one fifty percent of the property was to go to his children if he died and if you percent was to go to her but i was a run for the transfer letters testimony say about what happens of this are they the party discussed both parties testify there was no  it's clear from other cases here in the fourth district that this has been a consideration by the court but of course we don't know what was  on the court's mind because a court made no fine so what we're asking a court is to make a decision regarding fifty percent of the property and remain and the cause back to the trial for it to make a decision on the credibility of the witnesses regarding that point specifically to change its order and i brought up the fact that argument that the court made no findings as to the reasons why i did what it did and we had an argument weighted approximately thirty days and it came back down with another docket order that said mason so changes that did not change any of its order concerning the real estate already she wrote says the court did not even consider the fact that he that he uses nonmetal matic and we will make that argument alternatively the court should have the word of the one hundred forty seven thousand at least of the property which was valued at two hundred  fifty thousand it didn't make any findings regarding either of the issues didn't make any fight each regarding the credibility of the witnesses they no findings of not at all well the courts not required to do any state planning purposes as to at least fifty percent of the value of the property she admitted that she admitted that clearly there's no no question about it none of the cases i've read have a situation where you have the side who is going the side who received the gift that of the cases you have a situation where that person admitted yes yes we did have that discussion but it was only to fifty percent of the property the rest was supposed to go so to me fifty percent to his estate fifty percent to me keep in mind he had a twelve year old son from a previous marriage he didn't want his other wife to be in control what happened to this property and the bit that he died that makes sense but there's no way she clearly admitted if you read the transcripts i mean she clearly admitted that that that that discussion of the place prior to the transfer and that's why he did it he trusted her i mean it's clear as to fifty percent but don't forget the second issue if you don't if the court does not agree with our position on the first issue which i think it's in the least in my mind it's clear that this  now there's no findings in a trial court's judgment and i gave the trotwood a second chance when i found the post from motion to make some findings and it didn't occur but at least as to one of those two issues  given credit for either the hundred forty seven thousand or half of the value of the real estate one hundred twenty five thousand and divide the one half another alternative the court could could make would be pursued my that we don't have a problem with doing that either but but that seems to equitable and fair thing to do based on the statute based on the facts of these in this case clear that the reason harry playset property in joint tennessee was for state planning purposes much like the case in we're sixty that it's sided and that the court should find that as to at least fifty percent of that back of that property the court's judgment was against the manifest whether that evidence of the court should remain in the case back to the trial court to make a decision on the credibility of the two parties as to their testimony regarding that problem does the court believe harry that he did it because he wanted to make sure his children receive all of the value the pappi or did he do it no that wasn't there not she said we have to discussion but with the agreement was i would make sure that his children received fifty percent of the by the property and that i would get together fifty percent how  expected her to do that now i fed lived another twenty years i would imagine completely and of course it's all speculation and he is alive hopefully lives another twenty years but they would have taken some other state planning  regarding this property i would think that they would have however that's what his expectation was and kindred meant it that that's what they discuss so place in this residen percent to the whoa sixty case and other cases that are cited and other cases that have been decided by the fourth district appellate court and other corps placing property into joint tenancy for state planning purposes or to keep peace in the family is a legitimate reason for the court to find that there was no intent to make it a gift to the metal state or to the individual and to give that not marital property back to the case the what happened in the end was different but in both the sixty and smith the other side said no we had no agreement that this property would go you know would stay with this person and wasn't he didn't have testimony from the other side admitting that there was this agreement showing that the reason for the transfer was something other than a gift and inherit in court relied on however there's no no issue regarding the fact kindred netted that her and harry had the conversation prior to the transfer but in the event something happening harry that the property would go to his children from kender standpoint it was fifty percent from harry standpoint it was one hundred percent that was the only difference there's no dispute regarding that well that factual situation in other case was mr barry trial counsel no he was not the trial counsel argue we did the written arguments and he really didn't address his argument basically was it should be divided equally like everything else in the court all of that he didn't really address my argument sometimes i've got without an answer because i win when we get drastic take we addressed those issues we have a problem far far addressed those issues that are relevant to the issue in this case and what is this court being asked that this is being asked to reverse the decision of the trial guy saying that the crowd judge's decision is beyond the manifestly the when anybody else rationally considers this evidence they would that panel that individual that group of individuals would come to a conclusion totally different from what the judge said and they could come to no other th terms of yes we had this conversation and we would and i talked in terms of dividing it fifty fifty fifty percent would go to the children there's not really was testimony about conversation what hindraf did you plan to do with the property if harry doc at some point i and him i green we talked about half of the back of the property do have discussions with tkinter says yes we talked about it and i said at some point i'm going to divide the proud give half of the value to your children but it is not a condition of putting it in joint and once it's replaced terminations marital under five zero three be found no evidence that that was clear and convincing evidence that it wasn't intended to and what makes this extraordinary from cases i've had before they start this that my idea all this properly was conveyed by my wife to my back and he says that was by the best by clear and convincing evidence and even though it looks like i made of marital says we've had this conversation and i said if you die at some point i am going to give half of it to your  sat down and said make this joint marital property and we will divide it up a different way at the time and that is the key there is no such agreement there is a disparity in greatly from memory on it but the issue was the man felt that because of language barriers and problems that he did not have a full understanding of what happened so he said i transferred everything to a shop i think that without being all what is she say she saying it at his step i'm going to consider i'm going to divide eventually but that that's the distinguishing factor it's not saying i'm i agree here you put this in jo testimony with regard to respondents intentions at the time the transfer of the property of joint tenancy and found respondents testimony to be the more credible so it's the person the trance for transfer or discussed with his attorneys and he said precisely because in that he was doing it is because he'd had earlier problems acquiring title or requiring title this in the earlier properties either because of getting worse or that he didn't understand how things work  guess the point is you're never going to have cases that are always factually exactly the way but what you have here is a person who transferred real estate in the joint tenancy with his wife for state planning purposes because previously when his previous wife died he had problems i think specifically with his wisconsin property and some problem wisconsin with getting that into his own name so he could do sales i think he sold pieces of that property so he didn't want to go through that court found that the reason he did it was because it was for state plane purpose i think it's really it's very it's similar point justice mccoll asked about the issue of transfers prior to marry in dissolution and this is own real estate jointly and they're not married becomes very difficult because really the only way to deal with that is your partition action if if one party doesn't agree to do it the other party wants to do and i will say since this case is how about when i do trust in them that if business picked up a little bit because of recent things going on i put on these recently i put on this property has been transferred for state planning purposes i put that on the deed that makes a you know judge i've been doing horses for twenty nine years something like twenty ninth year and i do a lot of divorces but i've only done about fifteen ten to fifteen pretty jobs so i've had i've seen a lot of different type cases but this is the norm when people are getting married this is the norm they don't think about the ramifications they just do things and they trust their spouse they're going to marry this person they trust him so they they say ok let's all take care wou well remember he had a twelve year old he didn't want his second wife to be in control of his assets should something happen to him and he trusted kendra is my only answer i have no answer i will say this though we don't know what the judge thought you know