proper i mean use any effort you want but what most or any testimony about anything else in the record what i think there was testimony is that he was able to evaluate the business is based on fair market value and i think if you look back to the case law the case fossella expresses a preference for fair market value and willing seller under circumstances where neither is under compulsion to buy or sell well what other evidence to the court have in front of it well it didn't and that's the problem and i think if you yes ok and so i think this is another one of the trial court errors but in the here the bottom line is there were a bunch of these subpoenas and they were quassia and then redone and redone so the ones that were ultimately passed on by the court were complied with bill but again this was only the information that would have been available to members under the operating agreement we tried a third subpoena and their own not quasi because it was passed the discovery copy to the t if it exists so it's kind of hard in this case it's a little different to say specifically this is out there because it does point to you get your discovery you don't know in your prefer you rely heavily on the gun case in the fifth district case but isn't that we tried and it was our goal to present fair market value that's what we wanted to do all along where opposing counsel you know kept trying to restrict our discovery and restrict us you know the operating agreement so we were definitely trying to reduce more than just the operating agreements and that's where i think the claim case comes in really really important here is that a cla should based on the operating agreement was allowed but in claiming it was the only evidence produced and both parties seem to rely on the operating agreements where your experts have found comparable medical practices or sales of medical practices to shares in d c saying i mean wasn't this information available by the tacit method the income math age you know and other various masses that the trial where it can apply the method that it thinks most appropriately fits the situation here why don't we turn for a minute to the question of classification of the jennie own fifty percent of a plot of land and his brother owned the other fifty percent what his father's fifty percent be treated as marital property and divorce an oral expressed trust here well his testimony was that he was the gatekeeper and again i think that the operating agreement on the language is very clear that it's just not something that's permitted i think that if we believe james testimony that definitely james brother or jay's parents gifted the shares to him at the point where they couldn't own it anymore and they how do you get the fact that they did it to him what evidence is there of a gift as opposed to a trust where he would have been jailed would have been  really really kind of gives the facts in that case and number one in this case all of the shares here were acquired during the marriage so because they were acquired during the marriage you have the i would respectfully ask that during the course of oral argument there be no conversation in the gallery please so that we can concentrate on the arguments of counsel thank you you have a change shares thirty one in his name we know it was somewhere around two thousand or two thousand watt and then you have scott shares he did testify that he transferred his shares in two thousand two thousand when they were eight you see so you have printing money banks rely on this for loans mortgages things like that and in terms of the revival when you go by don't agreement stand behind george it is the only department of revenue they have full civil and criminal investigators or somebody cheech under taxes or their valuation of cetera the only part of the revenue and the internal revenue service are going to help georgette determine whether or not you take a look at it and they value the property and as we're doing here and not only is it the banks it's the bank examiners and not only is the bank examiners but jade and you she has three hundred partners so bones and if if these three hundred physicians are only a thousand i don't know monet's and they say well you know if somebody wants to sell their one one one hundredth or whatever of this and we're going to say it's valued at ten dollars that's probably not the real value of one one hundredth of that art collection so why is this  this formula is the fair market value this formulate is the best a most reliable value because it is reliant upon by banks bank examiners etc for those three hundred partners they set fair market value and i don't find that in the long it's not fair that you and the of the market by the way if they need a buyer in order to make a market and the market if you take a look at comparable sales there were comparable buildings in the community for flats and center and i derive we have faith information eleven doctors and twenty two doctors depending on the two businesses and so all both of them match up and and how he cheated on the taxes but this is not this situation isn't it jay we're sixty percent shareholder of all these three hundred doctors find a way if jay were sixty percent shareholder of all twenty doctors in a clinic find go after and my relief was directly tailored just to minority shareholders so direct to an operating agreement to have at least a presumption unless there is a dollars this is state it's homely one point three million they're spending seven hundred five thousand dollars on attorney's fees for four years of something that will never produce a result that we already know of the time of trial hostage for four years because all this money to be spent when we already know the value of it frankly i highly reliable value is a better value minutes relied upon by not just the people within the company but all people that we deal with  is the operating agreement that was in existence at the beginning and now at one point it was changed to allow others to i believe hold shares but you're talking about this agreement before any change  they emitted the part that says quote except as otherwise provided he read it so if you read through section five point zero three which which are the joint exhibits twenty eight fifty one and twenty eight forty soon but the banks are going to do that anyway and they're going to say well what restrictions you have such as a title commitment on the sale of a piece of property before you before you extend the loan or get a home equity loan or something like that on a piece of with saying quote except as otherwise provided here and and eat provides the exception exactly and it's called their title is call your insinuating or transfer it and then it says shall be familiar with the portions quoting but if it read it contracts i would submit that possibly you can assign your interest to another urologist or another member of the group who is eligible to own the shares but trial i'm stating that listen don't have all of our evidence here and i think you know counsel stated that fair market value is now the law is not the standard that the law requires but i think if you went out well as a last resort and you have to remember that at this point on force of you know reason being it will cost one was limited her motion to reopen the proofs was denied and at some point you have to accept what the