of court made was inclusion of one hundred thirty thousand dollars of good will in the value of the company that was that the court used to say was enhanced by the efforts of mr  may first of all it is it started with a figure by mr mugg who was in accountant it was brought in by mrs allen and he assumed two hundred thousand dollars because that was a figure that w used at the time previous part of the business was so some years prior to the time this hearing two years and mr mudge reached first of all he took the two hundred thousand dollars without any type of basis in tying it to the business of allen tire at the time to evaluate that second thing was as he said in his testimony he said i just assume didn't two hundred thousand that they would be giving covenants not compete and then therefore i figured that the two hundred thousand would be good if it was good for the father's business if you good for the resulting sons business as we know in tolkien there is a requirement that makes a court make a determination between enterprise goodwill and person with well just like mr mudd statements he's assuming it's personal goodwill personal goodwill which would be tied into a swiss but i think it was their argument it was an argument that there was no goodwill there was an argument that the business was totally non marital and were adequately compensated and those are two arguments here no wire i think myself and healthy and i think that's an air what the trial court did and another area that was made by mr mudd initially and was adopted by the throat worked with mr mudd did what was called an adjust book value of the company and an adjusted book value as he admitted in his testimony under accounting principles does not and good will factor it takes the company  yeah but it takes one hundred thirty off of the starting figure that you would look at when you make an analysis and i set forth that actually if you look on page twenty six of my prefix and it summarize it there were two other factors that the court didn't that included in a start figure that was a thirty thousand dollar truck that was bought for farms of his father which were traced to a specific check another was a seventy four hundred dollars of the property that along look at is overall picture i'm still proposing that she get sixty percent of the assets which if you look at the numbers when i'm finished still gives her up one hundred thousand dollars in mission to pay for home and it also you have to look at the fact  court and then in turn you come to was compensation actually paid during the time of the party's marriage to adequately compensated mr allen and that comes in to the point these parties mr allen's average earnings during that time period were thirty four thousand dollars a year if you add back the he also there was a withdrawal from a investment account of one hundred ten thousand charging things for their home that was being paid for by the business and that would it bring his salary up to close to sixty thousand dollars the evidence there's no evidence in the record that would show what a reasonable and i think the court except of the argument these underpaid just because of the fact that maybe it would look in if a salary but i think that the court can really look at it as to the position of the amount of funds that were actually taken out of that's when the amount of funds that she says will be used on an annual basis is on the run through the business and not included in their income but if you look at all that your honor we believe that there is a showing that he was adequately if the family adequately received compensation from the out ration tyra's s s we would ask the court to review our for our reduction based upon inclusion of  the court included that is one hundred percent marital and i think that the court didn't properly consider the evidence before if the testimony of the only testimony concerning the purchase came from my client and his father and income that he was receiving i think it does rise to the level of showing that there is this came from the day because the evidence that came into court was this prior to the time of purchase and they were making eighteen to twenty one thousand dollars a year in wages as an employee of the father now they're not going to save ninety thousand to him and his brother secondly as soon as they bought the farm in order to operate the farm they had to have fertilizer pay for each year they had to buy when they bought cattle all of this was bought by that for the demo farm so if they had the funds to buy the farm of ninety two thousand dollars then why would dad have to  that why would they have to keep paying so it's based on the totality of the evidence is obvious the only money that was available was stance so when they testified and said we didn't have any money to buy him it then the court has to look outside and see if anything else that supports well the lack of income and the father paying for the farm expenses supports  situation and the person doing the taxes i i'm not here to represent gore's there would be some suggestions of gee maybe this was somehow given the fam really a relationship this was sort of there's no question that father provided one hundred sixty seven thousand and some odd dollars as the down payment what the court did then is say ok we took better same age and the balance is narrow and there's no question that the balance of the three hundred eighty seven thousand was paid for by farm income there's no question in the record and we're not saying that's a question all i'm saying is when you look at this the court didn't adjust it all on that percentage because of the non marital fortune of the property generating money to pay for all of the fore now again your honor this is not something that was argued it was not something that was before the trial or but the law is that earnings on non marital property remain there there's no and what i did in my now is this was take a simple fifty fifty pro is very common if there's not a written lease in a fish receipt to asia and i just did calculations based upon what would happen if you took it that the remaining purchase price two hundred eighteen thousand and you applied to income off of that based upon the non marital marital relation ship of ownership and i think that's the proper way to do that given the fact that the non marital properties own income in and of itself as farm why we're four years down the road and we're still in this litigation and in so doing i came to the opinion and i will state to the court that much of had to do with the credibility of mr allen and i think that is a very important issue in this case i think even judge rules vary in his opinion addresses that issue of credibility or talks about it i have mentioned in the brief that we have filed writes me twelve specific areas where i believe mr allen's credibility is that issue and i think the most glaring has to do with allen tire and i would like to address that and make special reference to that the court recall with this allen tire subsequently there was a lawsuit filed by ben tire and they see both rich and alan for a while ation of the cabinet not to compete and that case went to trial they were successful in that case and that the work did not grant relief to ben tire one of the central issues in that case is whether or situation where mr allen was testifying at that time that well you know this is an arm's length transaction that we purchased the inventory of the equipment and and it was not a good now we get to his is you know i realize that trial judges you know judges are the credibility and yeah i think we had seventeen days of trial in this case you know these issues were we believe that there is sufficient facts that were presented that go against a man of his weight of the evidence and his assessment of the credibility of mr mr allen i mean i could go through many many things in credibility and we think that judge was very you know his consideration of mr dallas testimony you know that he did not give proper consideration to his his credibility and you know the issues here that told forty eight thousand dollars he addresses an investment account which was open in two thousand and five a total of two hundred eighty eight thousand six hundred twenty nine dollars and thirty four cents was positive in this account of the very short period in two thousand and five stacie assumption that large sums of money are not being reported by the corporation is supported by exhibit sixteen showing that very few cash deposits are made by the company in a business should have a fairly high percentage of cash receipts just draws very dated press set and said you know gross income of five to six hundred thousand dollars and says very suspect that there's earnings by large amounts of person expenses paid by the company he states the problem with valuing a company such as this has the potential of civil and criminal charges by the internal revenue service for tax fraud and by the state of illinois for both income a sales tax fraud that is what he was dealing with and and i appreciate mr scott's are even in regards to goodwill i told him stand in the personal goodwill of enterprise will i think there was a said he use i think it's a fair assessment of the valuation of this company taking into consideration everything that was given to him but we had you know m eighteen thousand dollars not eleven thousand dollars a year and at that point time they lived in a simple if you can call simple heard the last one and then they went from that home to the next home and in his field which was a step up and both parties acknowledged that they had are owed money from fox the other thing that i notice from the record was that the checks came out of this father's investment account but most part they were labeled as exhibits his checks but they had quite a few checks of where he wrote checks out and they tied in to these loans were the what do you mean he wrote church who what is what is it writing a check out for me you were talking about his rule was if it was associated with a foreign land and given the to the boys if it's associated with one voice house or another boy's house or the daughter's house that's a loan they got me back and that's the way he treated and part of that is supported by the testimony of mrs allen and mr l i agree that this court should not step in to the to the shoes of a judge that is listening to seventeen days examining faces watching body language listening and this judge obviously paid attention to a lot of that he did make findings with regard to difficulty see it with mr al he also made findings as to the father and times that he felt the father was was was you know his testimony and find these about misses out so i think that credibility can only be determined by a trial judge i don't i don't think we sitting back reading the record or you read the record can get the feel that a trial just feels when they're making these discretionary determination that's probably the reason for all of the rulings with regard to credibility i would point out another funds from the grain for his work on the farm he tried to buy a farm with pay for work farm and he ended up with getting money for working the farm for a year and the rest of the money came back to the