with the facts so i would hope that you'll be able to focus your arguments civically on the legal issues that you sent in your briefs and we come before  determined by the trial court was one hundred thousand eight hundred dollars which therefore leaves him one hundred sixty thousand dollars per year to maintain his household expens his ition that this is mathematically and correct assuming two hundred sixty thousand dollars per year is in fact his gross income and i believe i believe clearly points out that in our opinion it's expenses included in their two hundred sixty thousand dollars of gross income is the money given to him by his parents in two thousand and eight by mr marks his parents gave him money and the only real testimony the only testimony concerning that monies was the testimony of the accountant the testimony of mr marks and particularly respondents exhibit eight which broke down the specifics might and in my brief i did say that i rever in my argument and breaking that away and a little bit more of an explanation because those moneys were targeted specifically given first specific purposes and purpose of the bill primarily the children's education respondents exhibit eight breaks was a complete breakdown of all the monies went when they were given the account an be continuing stories in the event the ultimate place that you're going we know that i certainly i don't want to back away from that position because to some extent that was my position in my brief  but but there's more to it than just that even if we were to include a day's income and for the sake of my argument today i acknowledge in the fact that the that the court accepted the fact that the this court accept  the fact that the trial court's finding that it represented income what i'm saying is however that if we look at that income to see the court made a finding this court made a finding that that after the payment of maintenance there was one hundred sixty thousand dollars left for him to i believe i can quote this maintain his household expenses and the fact of the matter is there was virtually nothing left and i'm going to explain to you why there was nothing left and i think the record supports everything that i'm going to say here exhibit eight respondents exhibit eight broke down the specifics for which that money was given ninety percent of that money given over the period of the fourteen years according to exhibit a which it and exhibited it was not contradicted at all and track at the trial this guy's ninety percent of that money was for purposes related to the to the children primarily their education with which some of that money also to cover his attorneys fees or the all this litigation but ninety percent of it was given and in reality in talking about two thousand and eight the total of sixty four thousand three hundred twenty dollars was given to bill marks between january first of two thousand and eight and august nineteenth of two thousand and eight and all of that sixty four thousand three hundred twenty dollars sixty one thousand two hundred twenty of it virtually ninety five ninety eight percent of it was given the court's order to provide for the children's education that's right and instead of him pain for it is parents did well but his parents and here's the point his parents paid for it by once they gave the money to him it was earmarked so the money specifically went out now this court made a funny when you say to mike what do you mean so so his his parents the day  earmark now the court found that he made two hundred sixty that he had two hundred sixty thousand dollars in income it said one hundred thousand eight hundred hours we know close to maintenance that leaves him one hundred sixty thousand dollars a children so that's part of his i understand that the court made a specific finding that there was two hundred sixty thousand dollars income that he paid a hundred thousand dollars and made notes and therefore he bit her in sixty thousand dollars years that's what i'm saying so we're down to ninety eight down as in ours that's left for his personal expenses if that were it then basically we got ninety eight thousand for him a hundred thousand for her it's a fifty fifty division of fine but then there's one other point and the records showed that over a period of the nears when he wasn't making sufficient monies to pay the  what i'm wondering is if he's making two hundred eighty thousand or he's making four hundred thousand why do we have to about two million dollars just one so he's not making those kind of money is the court made those findings based upon including that money million dollars back in two thousand and one when the when the when when he there was an adjustment of the obligation he had for the million dollars in two thousand and one a clear finding to that effect since that time aside from monies given to him was for his father he didn't make any money he had money interest income that as on my brief it explains in addition to the interest income receipt he had the interest thousand eight hundred dollars at least one sixty for his personal expenses the evidence reflected that in two thousand and eight sixty one thousand barriers of the money that was included as part of his income in reality went right out for the education of of the child later fifty six thousand dollars of it was for tuition plus five thousand dollars that they put down so sixty one thousand dollars went out right for for town for two wished that brings that hundred sixty that was left for him down to  hundred thousand dollars now yes the pay seventy five thousand dollars of interest on their loans he's been making against his assets over a period of the fourteen years seventy five thousand thousand dollars you're down to twenty three thousand dollars a year or so after payment of the educational expenses of the child and the payment of the interest on the money he had up he barrel he has twenty three thousand dollars while he doesn't have one hundred sixty thousand dollars he has twenty three thousand dollars left then he has to pay taxes and the twenty three thousand and choose b and whatever his is income was in his and the exhibit reflects his taxes or twenty thousand dollars of exhibits i believe it's fourteen williams thirteen point three point one disclosures to sets forth is income being eight thousand dollars he said his total monthly living expenses are seventeen thousand eight hundred twenty dollars not including maintenance payments that includes the interest payment on the loans and all the other out outstanding bills debts and obligations he has so he says i need seventeen thousand dollars every month to meet everything including my  it costs me every month seventeen thousand now what's the difference what it costs to meet all of his obligation in the aggregate big being made here i'm dealing with this court's finding of two hundred sixty thousand dollars less one hundred thousand reserve one hundred sixty thousand dollars to maintain his obligations and we show that sixty one thousand dollars of that hundred thousand dollars went directly for the kids it was included in income because the court decided to include the money received this income but the money was earmarked and it all went we went in on a motion to try to get some temporary relief because he was paying at the time eleven thousand dollars a month or so between nine and eleven thousand dollars a month and the court granted the relief temporarily with without prejudice and reduced the five thousand and during the the balance of these percent it was it was the same all the same proceeding continue to pay the five thousand but then after the trial everybody eighty four hundred and of that differential between the eighty four hundred and the five thousand retroactive to two three years ago yeah whatever or something of that nature now the only way that mister mr marks could possibly get any money from the s s that he has which have been reduced substantially because of the dead against it is to sever those assets he's at the point and the evidence was presented that he can't borrow any more monies from those assets and the net amount of those assets is about a million dollars but four hundred fifty thousand of that brief yes that is that is the basic argument this read the math shows and the courts but this court's finding says and this is motion for reconsideration i'm trying to point out where with this court's finding that they had he had one hundred sixty thousand dollars i got the implication from your opinion that you thought that the the moneys were given to him and then the father paid these these educational expenses is saying it's not his obligation i'm just saying that there is enough that money was given for those purposes that money would have been there rather than those purposes existing so that money came in but it also went out and if the  that part of it is that even if we do consider it that way we certainly have to subtract it from from the expenses and coming down from what's left why because the courts like question was why because because the appellate court in its opinion stated hundred two hundred sixty thousand one hundred thousand out that leaves him plenty of money to meet his his income of ninety eight thousand dollars it ignored jack and by ignoring the fact that sixty one thousand dollars of this money was given for the purpose of education and read one out and ignoring the fact that that there were taxes on this money he this was a gross amount so if we take the taxes that was three things off and the monies that this court found was available for him to meet all expenses we have three thousand five hundred ninety one dollars with that in the form we haven't got  mortgage payments we haven't got it health insurance and he's a sick man the record reflects he has that could be just he has a heart condition not these expenditures there's only three thousand five hundred ninety one dollars available assuming we the  of that money right out for education that seventy five thousand hours a day running with interest income and that twenty thousand of those taxes and they really were all they had left was three thousand and that's all has left based upon that find me and and when if we accept the finding of the court which this court except the that is income was to sixty and his expenditure for maintenance was one hundred thousand eight hundred hours that leaves one hundred sixty and those three obligations that were  living expenses are seventeen thousand dollars eight hundred twenty that's number that i mentioned for inclusive of taxes education expenses and loan repayments now accor this brief the financial disclosure statement of william said includes all those plans i used to live repayment and then education and all this other living expenses and he hundred ninety thousand i guess but two hundred thousand dollars a year isn't it seventy eight hundred seventy in thirty four two hundred four thousand dollars a year which is that alone is forty four thousand dollars more so if he had forty four thousand dollars more then he would have a total of approximately forty eight thousand dollars which certainly wouldn't meet his expenses and the reality is she would be getting said and it's really very simple there are three things three expenditures off of that hundred sixty that this court filing was left and those three expenditures eat up virtually all of it just those three and they're in it supported by exist and testimony in the exhibit eight reflects the specifics of the money for college and i i don't have it from me right now but there is an exhibit that thirteen or fourteen i believe it is reflect these specific seventy five thousand dollars an interest payment that that went out and it's it's all been presented it's there i said to the affidavit of income expenses that you're making reference to reflected the tax obligation it's right there if we just simply subtract those three things from the hundred sixty that the court said this court said is available to is sufficient to meet his his intentionally limited the focus of what the court can sugar in terms of you for asking but the quote in the petitioner's exhibit nine in two thousand and six he had deposits and withdrawals from the personal income from his corporation she notes that he states he makes nothing from his corporation he chooses to make enough that i make nothing from but the holdings were the best to the extent of unexplained deposits into the checking account of the respondent husband exceeded his net income quote we agreed that the source of such monies unexpended should be considered as an additional court that we have yes counsel was arguing that his assets are diminishing that his expansions his real expenditures are double if next cripple to what he claims they are he's playing two hundred thirteen thousand dollars annually and he had in two or three years he has the price of almost three dollars for the purpose of calculating child support but the judge will also consider that was for the purpose of calculating child support but in terms of meeting its needs and expenses she can consider other issues and paying the maintenance and hafter meeting all of his expenses in two thousand and eight mr march had a hundred and seven thousand two hundred one thousand dollars left over surplus over and above his needs over and above the main in two thousand and seven he had two hundred twenty nine thousand one hundred fifty five dollars left over after meeting all of his needs after paying maintenance got a refund on taxes from which a credit found as part of his income this isn't that something off thirty thousand dollars because the corporation got a refund of texas pay so giving him the money back is basically giving back his his own money so i don't know how that could possibly be considered part of income but the trial court that found it as part of the two hundred sixty thousand dollars in income this was not an issue before the court it was some concern that he was but the most recent i mean the petition alleges a substantial change in circumstances and talks about the most recent events but if you look at two thousand and seven a tremendous amount of money was was given for the children tide drops out of college that this father still going to be giving him that those monies i mean ninety percent of the monies that were given over a period of of years ninety percent of it was given exclusively for purposes related to the children's education or attorney's fees and hopefully the second anymore attorneys fees if the litigation ends and as far as the children are concerned will co because at this point he'll probably pay tax to wish him directly because if it runs through him it's all of the sudden it's considered his income it's considered williams income and that's what happened and now it's just the fact that in the the trial court based it's the situation and it's clear from its opinion on that two hundred sixty lest one hundred eight and what i'm saying is that she just ignored two very three very very important things because that basically left him nothing and it's just she made a finding that this is enough for his expenses and obviously that was a concern of the court and a concern of the appellate court when you when you made your decision that should be enough to his needs well i think that pointed out the it can't possibly need his needs because because he has these other expenditures some of the money comes and goes right out and the other it's the same money the same money that is that earns the interest that was included as income it creates the obligation of interest being paid out the net amount it takes it away so you just attract those three items i talked about which are shown by