appellate in preparing for this argument today i always try to cut to the chase and what i think is the most compelling issue that the court needs to consider in making a decision and one that i don't feel was adequately addressed in the appellant's argument is that the standard of review in this case is whether the trial court decision is against them and that's weight of the evidence and i think some of the questions that came  at eight ten very clearly lays out his review of the law and the evidence reach this decision and that decision based significantly on his evaluation of the credibility of the evidence that was presented to him he's not bound to believe every word that a witness testifies to the has the opportunity to observe marriage now the question was presented that really held back to contract law and i came to this conclusion that this is what's lacking in this case there was no far less than clear and convincing again there are many aspects of that that would tend to support this the judge's decision for example there is no documentation of these loans and  to me three hundred fifty two thousand dollars is a lot of money and if you had an expectation to have that money repaid to you you would take great here to document  what reasonable expectation didn't have to be repaid she didn't have a job she has health problems she if you expected to be repaid from the sale of the home why didn't he just ha i'll sell the home and pay the debts it doesn't really flow that that expectation existed at the time as it relates to the sale of the house you could also say well that was a condition a condition precedent to him being repa the condition never her because the sale never happened why it didn't happen we can't say however if you put a condition solely in the hands of one party to either tell allowed their condition to occur and not then and  know and they've prevented a condition from being occurring where they've also prevented them their performance of the contract i found this to be a very interesting examination of my first contracts class in law school these are some very fundamental throughout their marriage and i would say that in this day and age that really does it lead to the conclusion marriage is not really defined in form in the same manner that it might be fifty years ago where mom and dad built on the same ro protect himself in that was to get some of these agreements and right alternatively if the sale of the home was going to be the source of the funds to pay those debts he could have said honey i'm going to pay you the money you have assets pay those debts when you sell that said he did not do that unless really very i think telling in regard to his generosity generosity he may now regret but we still have to look at the intent of the parties and whether there was a meeting of the minds and again i stress that for the trial court having had the opportunity to view the parties isn't it it is is charged with of this case and the conflicting evidence that was presented at the trial court did not abuse his discretion and did his decision without against a manifest way i'd like to just make one other point out and i believe it was just a surprise that asked a question in talking about even trying to define the dream act that the parties had mr jorgensen make comments like it evolved over time and that's again there is no definitive meeting of the minds for these parties which regardless of the fact that this is a fundamental princes principle of contract law and seems very basic is still a necessity before  with the testimony of the parties in the credibility that the trial court assessed amongst those people i don't think that decision is necessarily a question of law it's a question of fact and in on the court's ruling as he dead he remember correct and then finally i just would would state hindsight is always twenty twenty and that is the basic summary i would say regarding the issues that have been raised i miss your troubles and the ultimate breakdown of the marital relationship you wish we could go back in time and change some thing are written documents and perhaps he just figured it out but just because you figure something out in two thousand and two doesn't mean you can go back and get a do over from one thousand nine hundred ninety you know