you may have please the court in council like to first start by discussing the trial court's decision not to impute income i think there are three key decisions in this case allan source collectively acting through source enterprises intentionally determined to defraud the marital estate journey years two thousand and four and two thousand and five this court decided that but they were the parties marital problems way would have been paid significant bonuses for those two years in making this determination  one of those reasons insisted at the filing roy an allen source told the trial or that the only reason roy was paid was significant bonuses four years prior to the great down of the marriage was to build the the marital dream home and that after the one was finished in two thousand and three he was going to go back to a sixteen hundred dollar weekly salary that he'd been earning since ninet six the trial court found that reason not credible and this court in its decision affirmed that finding that is the law of the case the second decision in september of twenty eleven judge stupidity in the third party case found that in two thousand and four in two thousand and five way would have at least been paid one hundred sixty one thousand four hundred dollars in bonus income at least but he limited the constructive price to that amount judge judy bikies finding in two thousand and eleven was consistent with his findings in two thousand and nine that for those years but for the marital difficulties roy would trial court announcing the findings and the final dissolution found joining the course of the marriage the source family lived an affluent lifestyle they had a big house that same lifestyle roy continues to reside in the nine hundred sixty five thousand dollar house and he has money to spare the court classified his living as extravagant during the trial in october of twenty thirteen the only reason given by roy for the drop in his income after two thousand and three was that same reason he'd given in two thousand and nine which was found not credible roy said well i didn't get bonuses after two thousand and three because i was only getting it big bonuses before hand to build the dream know my view is that the ruling is lives by the you tell a big enough lie long enough sooner or later maybe some of these going to believe it and you should not especially when you've already campus it's too hard to go back and think you're out the exact amount that roy would have earned during those years well since he gave nothing but a fraudulent reason for the reduction in the income that is wrong none of the imputing cases you know require you know that the victim spouse to establish was some type of you know mathematical certainty the amount of income that was diverted or went on earned by that the support dodging spouse you know to require such precision by the victim's fouls you know simply encourages fraud you know one of the cases we cited was clear where you know the husband was you know hiding in town and you know he wouldn't give an explanation and the thirty years he had a solid four year history of the in account paid to the stock officers which was roy innis father so a four year history of how they divided bonus income at the end of the year and up until that four year period up until the marital difficulties started you know what i would get on average fifty six point eight percent of the bones income in a row during the year the that that to roy and his dad would take an income and then the big pot would be to buy it at the end of the year again that the history was the way it was got you know a little over fifty percent that bonus income so mr gruber then look ok well after the breakdown of the marriage all of the bonus income was paid to and if the president's had been if those two right now and had been consistent and how they divided income before the breakdown then taking the income from two thousand and four up there in two thousand and eleven after tax roy would have been paid a little over two point one million dollars in bonus and that would have been the fifty six percent again after the breakdown of the marriage one hundred percent of the bonus income was paid to the father now the curtain you know there's talk of well you funding roy to the tune of five hundred eighty three thousand dollars to get back his house and pay off those loans where did that come from where did this you know over half a million dollars come from well it came from a line of credit from allan source so the money from the corporation that would have been royce went to and we traced that a bunch of that money then went into a line of credit and it came right back around to do a source now so we it's our contention he benefited significantly from that money and that based upon as i this coming from this group so he was benefiting significantly from bonds again he was leading a lifestyle that was far in excess of his reported income of nice wages of sixteen hundred dollars a week and his you know rent money from the corporation and it's for those reasons we believe the court abused its discretion you know by refusing to impute income because it could be quantified as to exactly what would they have done a year would have been a little more would it have been a little less than the fifty six point eight percent after each could you explain what the the well and what that stems from is that in the i'll call it the january of two thousand and five marital same mom there was a transfer on the corporate books source enterprises owed roy an excess of three hundred seventy five thousand dollars which would have been a marital asset but in january of zero five it was there is a transfer on the books to outsource that three seventy five ok they presented at trial oh no no no so it was just paid some you know roasters paying back that now you know some of the answer to your question is the you know money there she never saw it in there right never told her that there was a loan from mr ad the corporate accountant and then the accountant for rule i in and is that you know during those ten years it was never put on a financial disclosure it was never put on a loan application the accountant didn't know anything about it until you know i got a call from mts and transfer  she said well i don't think it's going to be paid back but it's illegal now i am somewhat confused because my first take was see the trial that was and this was and sh they transferred it they overpaid it you know by almost you know forty thousand dollars you know they couldn't compute the interest correctly the trial court didn't address that you know will even if it was valid well paid back dollar for dollar since it was just a transfer on the work books which i think that after this is all over easily transferred back  the four years before the breakdown of the marriage i'm sorry for a year per year you know even at the time of trial his reported income of ten thousand dollars t times more agnes and a thousand dollars a month you know the other point in the trial were passed on all of the fees incurred in third party proceedings and and it thank you then you know the the law allows if you do something illegal or commit fraud in the course of the dissolution action then you're liable for that and it was not appropriate for aggie to have to find good morning my name is steve wakeman to represent roy source in this matter this is a case that was trying to divorce case before a very good we submitted she got a case about eighty percent right there were a couple of issues that we take issue with that we think were errors if i may find remaining on the top about three or four different things here let's worse by source enterprises that was held in some certificates of deposit by source enterprises the cause was remanded back to the trial or the trial j one hundred sixty one thousand four hundred dollars in imputed income that would have been paid through a source for bonuses that were not paid to roy during the years two thousand and four and two thousand and five and imposed a construct of trust directed by this court judge to believe the trial judge stated that under no circumstances would he have  and a trial in the divorce court agnes again asked the court to impute over two point one million dollars of income bonuses she claimed that were not paid her way by source enterprise during the years two thousand and four through two thousand and thirteen the trial judge properly declining to do this now and is called an expert and accountant neil gerber testified that source enterprises had paid out bonuses as it did during the four year period from one thousand nine hundred ninety nine through two thousand and three the period that the source dreamhouse was being b if source enterprises have done that in the same way it did nose for years then one would received over two point one million dollars over a nine year period from two thousand and four through two thousand and thirteen indeed were a source after april of two thousand and seven was no longer a shareholder and source enterprise is no longer an officer or director of the company for the last eleven years roy sources income from source enterprises has been the same he's received the same salary at that time with no bonuses since two thousand and three no bonuses in over eleven years the petition for there is no case it has been cited that we're authorizing imputation of income in the manner that has been suggested by this in this case going back over a period of nine eleven years the second area that i want to talk about is the maintenance that was ordered by the work which we believe was excessive judge one found that roy sources gross income is ten thousand dollars a month and his net income is eight thousand dollars a month she or three two hundred dollars a month in maintenance which is forty percent of that on top of twenty eight percent for child support for two children which is another twenty two hundred seventeen dollars she also require way to pay for and uses cobra health insurance coverage and all the uncovered medical expenses  the result is that he spends proximately fifty five to fifty six hundred dollars per month and eight thousand dollars net or roughly seventy percent of his net on those four imposed obligations month and then so her income is roughly two and a half times royce in terms of net we believe that disparity is excessive in that the maintenance awarded here is an of discretion in should be in the wind fifteen hundred dollars a month scuse me most profit little over six thousand my calculation is about six thousand thirty six  as to the attorney species we believe each party should be responsible for paying their room in this case judge warman ordered roy an additional fifteen thousand of agnes's attorneys fees the reason we believe this was an of discretion is because under the law as announced in this court to have a fee shifting of attorney's fees want to show the pictures or her inability to pay his or her own attorney's fees and the corresponding ability of the other party do so in this case and this is financial situation is better than morals not only in terms of net income on a monthly basis but do that but the court neglected to look at two factors in that it will division and those are the attorney's steves that were paid out on behalf of the parties as advancements from the marital state need to be taken into consideration in this case fifty seven thousand plus additional fees that have come out of marital assets that were once in my trust account have been paid out on behalf of see the court's comment about this being illegal no and that was one of the claims of dissipating i believe the well but judge warman was saying is she says this is a legal no in the money's going to be paid back she met that really sources not getting any money back she found the witnesses credible ed matthews and jim chadwell the accountants who testified that she found there was no dissipates and she found agnes failed to meet her burden of proof and when she said it doesn't have to be paid back i think what she meant to say was it has been paid and it's not coming back from alan fees regardless of if the notice of appeal is file and i think the reason is while we still do let regardless of the notice of appeal so we don't have what we have in this case which is piecemeal bills we had an appeal that final order but now we're back again on appeal all of attorney's fees that could have been decided in should have been decided he met original decision so what this had done was waited until year after that decision file her petition for attorney's fees and at that point the trial court had no jurisdiction over source enterprises think i do have to say the trial court when it denied attorney's fees to agnes resource enterprises did not enter any specific reason why party attorneys fees or contract attorneys fees not the attorney's fees that are at issue under the dissolution act which the court knows are based on balancing between the two spouses looking at the dissolution act i will submit that when they change the phrase spouse to already as they did that is now an ambiguous term because the court needs to trace how the attorney's fees that address his request into the factors that are set forth in the statute what the statute source enterprises in com none of those factors are after all so the court could have worlds at those factors and some well none of these apply so all they answer is zero she gets dissolution that still would arise under the act this case does not arise in the acts merely a third party case of it has nothing to do with the dissolution act so when the state uses the term spouse they use the term marriage then uses liberally they don't s third party they don't see a corporation there's nothing in the legislative history that would suggest that the court intended that you could bring in outside and even say well you need to pay my attorney's fees when the provision is solely to provide decision which addressed a similar issue which was an interviewer ensured into a case under the dissolution act and said hey i want them to pay my fees and the court and that he said no all for the same reasons that i'm presenting to you now says spouse it says marriage doesn't say the other party in pay it only says that when it defines the term the parties to the dissolution it says pari when you go further into the statute attorney for the provisions he drops that language and moves to spouse and marriage in the battle decision they said no intervene or is not a spouse is not married party as nothing to do with the dissolution you cannot get fees specifically reserve said we're going to deal with that in the divorce case first we're going to deal with the constructive trust case and even if you don't like in fact the bottom line is wrong acquiesced to and i'm hearing the  of those years in the divorce case i've quoted counsel's statements at the third party trial as well as there is never any objection made that now it has to be heard in the third party case which is a requirement if you don't you know to having you know issues overlap from one proceeding into another you have to object and you never do it with regard to source and or crisis you know i don't think i know what a spouse is and if you change the word spouse to party you know i don't think party is an ambiguous term i mean i think we learned what a party was you know the first year of law school somebody in a lawsuit that the only marriage in dissolution of marriage act specifically allows for third party actions in order to bring in th dissolution of the marriage or thirty days there out there is only one case when there were two separate suits and so we filed or the petition against sorbs you know doesn't mention is that you know the factors besides disparity of income between the parties that the court can look at all the relevant factors well if you look at the relevant factors between activists and source it's disparity of income you have you know somebody in the background pulling the strings for one spouse or the other in a whether it's you know hiding money trading assets you know and if you you know close the door to being able to go after those third parties who basically you know if you break the system to hide acts that then they're never along and people need to basically heard the arguments again and said regardless of whether a judge vicki decided this or not this testimony speculative and you simply can't tell what kind of bonuses resource might have received over this nine year period and for two thousand florida two thousand and five judge vicki has already signed with regard to that there's another point  dissolution of marriage which can be found that age twenty one in the heads judge going to specifically found that right has seen a significant reduction in his income since the marital relationship deteriorated and then use the case there is not a disparity that roy has a much greater income earning capacity than agnus at this point that have been accounted for  has done these things in this case and that is simply not borne out by the facts of the case the fraud that was found in this case was relative to actions by source under crisis the only actions by roy according to this court was his complicity by his acquiescence in the fact that his salary had been reduced during that time there is a specific provision in this court's ruling which can be found that anyone thirty one of the appendix that found that really did not enter into any agreement with alan the source to go through his salary or bonuses manipulating his income or hiding assets simply is not the case there has been no evidence in this case that he did any of those things as a result again we would ask that this court on all issues except mrs behalf for her attorney's fees which grossly exceed those from the merrill stayed on roy's be after the tune of over fifty seven thousand dollars and to consider her admitted this a patient which is at least twenty nine thousand dollars