the original petition for mr s divorce cases go in this case from a factual standpoint is fairly simple in the sense that the there was a marital settlement agreement which i will get you in a moment wealthy individuals had college education both individuals were employed in fact mr toy and she do to greese one in business one in education which loads you are teaching certificate which lets you are teaching and then twelve but a horse was filed by my client in february of two thousand and twelve and then a subsequent temporary order had been entered in june of two thousand and twelve there well as later in merrill's the agreement reached in entered into court on march twenty sixth two thousand and they're team the day the parties appeared for hearings and the issues that were heard on that beat were the issues of whether or not maidens will be awarded and whether or not attorney fees be ordered those are the huge issues that are the motion supplement the record either mr olson or myself or trial counsel if you have a question as to why that was not a part of the record i know i can't answer that and i don't believe mr olson probably can either you know i mean contact with both attorneys to try to figure reached regarding the distribution of their assets and sets forth what the monies were that each word she received and if we look at that it shows that julie essentially received three hundred sixty thousand dollars whereas t ordered to pay lobbying the vehicle debts of approximately twenty three thousand as well as the student or the artist students or if he's in children's at least one of the child the student loan sixteen thousand dollars if we add that of what the parties receive now i've certainly will it now is insured meant that that amount in the scheme of things is not necessarily it certainly in some cases not a large amount of money but in this case i would suggest that it was a large  monny and we need to look no further than the testimony in or the elements regarding the party standard of living in this case julie herself we have given the most damning testimony regarding the standard of living of the parties used in this case the factors the court is to consider in determining whether or not a means award is appropriate and the standard of living certainly in this case shows or there was no evidence that supports that the parties of any type of extravagant lifestyle they did not take dollars i wasn't just as extremely significant and those bases or reasoning for why the course of working in maintenance is inappropriate in this case another factor that the trial courts are considering his decision and needs to be addressed as the health of the parents even after we generally at trial and even to a certain extent in her brief before this court suggest that she has medical issues or medical conditions that justifie she worked throughout this she was employed as a teacher she had previously worked in the business field she had two college degrees or with a minor she always worked during the course of the marriage and this is not a scenario where husband was the primary breadwinner mom stayed at home raising the kids had no formal training no education and now dad had a new girlfriend or or wanted to be for you so to speak and mom was left with nothing but joy got education  trial the budget and specifically give testimony about budgetary monson she had a lawyer that she was not pain there were several of those there were the issue of the attorney fees that she was questioned about in her thousand and thirteen and that amount that had been paid in full was sixteen thousand three hundred forty six dollars so of the two hundred dollars per month that she hadn't or both of them for attorney fees was not necessary because she was not making that claim the result of their hearing that dame preparation that hearing and then you said twenty seven hundred i was thinking it was twenty five hundred it was i know that todd was ordered to pay twenty five hundred of those attorney fees so you are correct  however she acknowledges testified at trial she was not making that payment at that time in terms of the monthly mortgage that she had set forth in her budget of four hundred thirty two dollars and forty five cents she also acknowledged that she was not making that claim that she had not mean that you know for quite some time in light of the temporary order that had been in place that required to make the mortgage payment so there was there were additional monies that she had set forth in her budget in preparation for trial that she was not paying out additionally there were monthly medical bills that she had set forth in her budget the five hundred dollars there was no evidence no testimony regarding any form doing treatment her bills the only money that actually it was even a budget she had approximately five hundred seventy five dollars allotted however the only monthly amount that was supported by the evidence was the amount of the insurance so that's why i used the figure five hundred dollars because we take out the monthly amount for the insurance that's in the record it comes down to approximately five hundred dollars that she is not paying that she had in her budget and was suggesting that she needed the evidence however did not support again as i stated earlier that she had any ongoing treatment with the breast cancer or any other issues there was never even testimony about medications and the cost of medications and how how expensive those were and how she couldn't meet those  total those numbers we have a minimum over of over seventeen hundred dollars that she had set for orthe in her budget that she claimed and she prepared the budget she was paying out but it needed a trial that she was not going out so she has an inflated budget of seventeen hundred dollars if you take that off the top so this is the clearly that supports the notion that eight hundred dollars a month of maintenance was not necessary because she had more money to meet her monthly bills than what she was paying them but that it wasn't reasonable for her to expect she'd have to begin if i understand your question correctly i would agree with you that you could make the argument that at some point when she can't vacated or was removed from the marital home that she might have to incur a monthly amount to pay for housing i certainly think that's a fair argument however no evidence or testimony was presented to support or show what that figure would have been so i would suggest if we just pick a know that is realistic for me to stand here say that you should say zero zero or certainly it would be her burden i would suggest to show what the amount was that she should have to incur whether that was through the form of testimony about what the average prints are the evidence at trial was in fact that his sales because he's employed in sales and a salary was twenty thousand dollars plus a formula that compiled the commissions on his sales were down eighteen i believe point nine point seven or point nine almost nineteen percent at the time of the trial for that year so that is the evidence certainly that we have in terms of what is earnings were doing at that time now both sides make the argument they may go up substantially later on the neko down but again that would be conjecture so you at least doubt that the evidence before you that he was not schedules earn as much money that years he had in the past in addition coke ok and they should i believe to answer i guess more specifically your initial question is this is a two full step not only are you looking at whether or not he has the income to be able to pay there's also whether or not she has a need and that's certainly the reason i h addressed if you will the budget because she has to first go say hi i don't have enough money to meet my bills to make to make ends meet and when she was placed her budget even if we add back in the mortgage payment by some thirteen hundred it did not in terms of the retirement i would agree that there is a sense in there that probably was poorly written by myself and it does maybe suggest relieved that information is not in that merrill so mean it clearly was not in terms of julie retirement amount but i stand by what i've set forth in my reply brief that it clearly is before the court it was an evidence three different places it was in a financial affidavit it was in an exhibit presented by both parties at trial and even j in the event that my poorly written sense in the one in the one section lead's you that misunderstanding i apologize to all involved but certainly that information is before the court i in the event that i have forgotten anything in the that question also it took me a while because i was my friend who was never there but i would point out one thing and then i think some of the questions that each of you have asked are going to be addressed by my presentation if they aren't please interject at the appropriate time and one thing that it should be noted is in the record and i believe justice o'brien asked the question dealing with the  the printers it's an estimated figure and it was something that she was anticipating might be necessary after the fact the only other thing i would mention that wasn't in my prepared remark is what happened to the marital settlement as being not included in the record i was not welcome home nor was mistrial we met for the first time today my only theory on that can be just a so we each have a little bit of back learning to do to get into this case this thing that is really the crux of this is that the trial org has an extremely w latitude in determining what is reasonable means and it is not limited to just the factors that are contained within the statu maintenance award because her social security income that was shown on the financial after david is a prospect of thing and the dollar amounts involved and there is this prospect or just as she's not eligible for medic until a certain age in the future and that's where i think a lot of that in rendering his opinion found that she would be getting those and that would help her from that point forward but it would surely not help work from now at the time of the distinct differences of opinion are not differences of income eighty five and thirty five that's a crucial factor  one of the things that i did in looking at judge dances decision was to look at the cases cited by my mistrial in the spring and i think those cases in the substance of number is i when i saw that that was going to happen i tried to compute it and i could it's was not me at this point as to how it's going to occur but yes you're absolutely right she could combat there's a quote in my brief that i'm sure you've all read this is a trial court's decision regarding the amount of maintenance work will not be overturned on the left no reasonable person and justice schmidt you refer to this i believe get to the level of my daughter's an educator so i know it is never gets on the level of a man making eighty five thousand dollars a year and potentially morals missions it just doesn't happen so all hancock county  i think you all know is not exactly the most affluent area in the country for a lady of these age to find a high paying job and i don't think that anything that we could think it's clear what happened humans beings up until right before trial have basically been paid from whatever source and then we're judged mansell did was he took the preparation for trial on the attorney's fees and maintenance issue and the actual trial time and that's where the twenty five hundred dollars figure came from because they asked well was intense a paid it that it would cost to go to trial there are some unknowns in the record and then any motion for the entry of a judgment by julie's lawyers before they could get a judgment out or there was no agreement between counsel for mr toy and counsel for mrs for toys that he found that this you will the cases are legendary that says a person to get an award of attorney schoolies let me find them the exact quote for you please does not have to be destitute and does not have to think that in this particular case when you look at the overall scope of things twenty five hundred dollars is not a lot of money for mr kerr toyah his income level to contribute to the final amount of fees of his are in opposition to what happened in our case  i think the judge panel in the answer to your question justice but then look at the ability to balance the ability of julie to pay as opposed to the end the maintenance factor as well as the attorney we're trying to level the standard of living which they head also points out that was a minimalistic type existence but that shouldn't have to continue if julie now has do everything herself she shouldn't have to live on earth thirty five when they were used to living on the five in thirty five some places that balancing act in the that you have the elements in this appeal to overturn judge faithfuls this is i think it was one of the evidence that by his is opinion and i think he should be any additional question