viewing equipment auctions and equipment sales and admitted that that was part and parcel of his farming business now he submitted no authority to this court suggest that he should didn't include it in to two thousand and twelve taxes because it wasn't actually received until after two thousand the accounting year two thousand and twelve but he admitted that he received that income before the trial began he never stated that he didn't receive one hundred eighty eight thousand dollars roughly check that he listed in this pretrial affidavit is being paid to first farm credit services one of his problems but that doesn't discount the fact that he stated both in his written submission to a stack repair and on the stand that he received the four hundred eighty hours of the truck or it simply didn't count don't count the extra money and as a result of that mr miles income was again average to forty thousand if you just include crop insurance by itself it goes to sixty three thousand if you flew both the crop insurance and the equipment sales mr mounds average income over that two thousand and one two thousand and twelve period from what was looking at those from for about forty thousand dollars a year to about one hundred thousand dollars that is roughly two and a half three and a half times what mrs announcing was that's significant difference when you consider the trial court's overall determination in the case of a fifty fifty split looking at a income  entitlement i suppose that she would otherwise be receiving the payment over fifteen years as we say in our group is a longer time period than any of the other reported cases that we were able to identify and the choice to secure the judgment with buy a mortgage instead of a judgment when there's the truck it simply doesn't do any explanation as to why the additional burdens that a mortgage creates as opposed to a traditional judgment really was necessary in this case different ways with reviewing from a divorce judgments some judgments get reversed or a pure abuse of discretion where the reviewing court seemingly just decided that the truck or its application of the factors to the the maintenance issue in this case is essentially the similar to the property issue the tribulation of mr mounds maintenance and or charge mr mountains income of the understating of that income is period truck or calculated at roughly one hundred thousand dollars a year again with with an income disparity such as that one in a marriage of this duration given the the factors that were presented to the court including the standard of living  a while to decide the case then it came back on post trial here in this court was more adequate for this court with more of the prepared to make a decision in this court made proposition the problem the council has in my anus is what i was told early on in my career voyeurs can't change facts and counsel doesn't like the facts and he was confronted with in this matter but they are the facts and they were virtually all agreed to with regard to had the financial statements we had the bank notes we had the operated on so those were all part they were submitted of court the court had months to take those into consideration courtney's determination is to the death this man was doing was working on year he was trying to make a living farming a hundred thirty acre farm that he did his wife wired during the marriage and hiring himself out to farming for neighbors or friends he hit at the time of this divorce adams county and state of illinois was maybe eight to twenty bushels where he normally made one hundred fifty done hundred eighty he was having to pay money to cut that corner down because it was of no use to him so that a hundred thousand dollars operating on he couldn't no could he not pay that back to the bank it didn't generate any income he didn't receive insurance proceeds those insurance proceeds weren't income those were an eighty percent reimbursement on some of the eighty five that went back to the bank so he got to his wife are being sued by one of their children well that's the facts of this judge was confronted as far as mr mom danis client she was working a job that paid twenty three to twenty five thousand dollars a year she was working interest characterizes part time as it is unfair to her be a disservice to her but she was working thirty to thirty four hours i asked her would you ask for more work i won't ask for more hours would you take more hours if they twenty five so she had a shortfall sixty thousand nine thousand dollars here assuming the budget is legitimate and i'm not here argue that one where the other but she asked for forty thousand dollars i guess when you know her theory was i'll take use forty thousand of taking the excess the six or seven thousand put it in my pocket and take all my check and put it in my pocket that's not self sufficiency with all due respect to mr mom diamonds quiet that's plain simple really so first off my the time this of course it wasn't realistic especially when you consider what she was asking for so to say that this work was it was arbitrary to say that this court exceeded the bounds of reason to see this court nor the law which i believe is she get on with her life can she survive or should she certainly can't can he do that it's difficult for him but yes he can do that and that's what's happening if she doesn't give aid the principle that he pays her at all at the end of this period of time she will have more money than she started with i don't know where anybody in this day and age can put a half million dollars in the bank and earn three point seven five percent and have a guaranteed by a first mortgage on real estate which is what she does this lady has so long in the short of it is when you can't give the solution to the core don't criticise the court for what it does and that's what we have here and that's what i with then roughly one percent of each other right up but with regard to the personal property it was significant dispute no doubt i'm not sure how that really impacts the the rest of this case i don't think the question that whether or not we agreed upon the value changes whether the trial court accurately calculated mr amount of income or it with regard to the job loss that job loss took place well before the divorce took place he was still receiving unemployment during the course of the divorce  ran out but that doesn't and we didn't make any issue of whether or not the trial court included or didn't include his unemployment compensation we're just looking at what income mr amount was receiving from his farming operations that income was roughly eight hundred thousand dollars a oh with regard to crop insurance issue i still have not heard any reason to discount that those farms as income there are so you buy them yes they were into their insured his income otherwise i don't know if they're all that to support from some form of unemployment compensation or disability compensation or what have you it's money flowing in to him to compensate him for his work and paid for that insurance to cover him in case he was unable to farm the crops to that level he was unable to he receive that money whether those to pay down debt or not doesn't change the fact that it's income with regard to his ability to pay and that income supports and would have been able to support the work made and in this case with regard to game with regard to the on account for funds that mr mollett talks about the court addressed both parties claims of dis