conclusion she's capable of working with is contrary to the evidence presented and then the twenty thousand dollar figure was not based upon any specific governments at all there's no evidence of a particular job but she was qualified to fell and she's school and when  recover from and then intermittent flare ups that table less time to recover from but they have been unpredictable and when you put those two pieces of evidence together i do believe that the result is arbitrary i two thousand dollars come from there wasn't a particular job i had to file a particular number of hours that should be expected to work a certain task and she'd be able to fulfill without suffering the kind of stress that could exacerbate the condition and i think that in light of the lack of evidence to tie the imputed income to this particular person's condition years out of the workforce and the il kids have a conclusion where the husband had a negative mostly cash but because of the lifestyle that was enjoyed in the marriage and the dim prospects of the wife in that case being able to approximate the less than injury during the the five hundred fifty thousand to six hundred thousand dollars range other than the comment that he accepted some of the testimony that he heard regarding the non recurring income and to my position that whether or not accept his income between five fifty or the not recurring income so to speak we don't know exactly what number coming coming discounted it put too much emphasis on the recession here and what really should be done is to take a trip to allergens actual gone and surely forced to sell her home and she lives in with her daughter samantha and that is contrary to case law on the attorney's fees and that is to say that where there is money available that the recipient should not be guidelines to take into account the fact that the incomes nonrecurring and may not come to the pay or even future so to the extent it is now it is in to the extent that company back in two thousand and one these people essentially lived off of assets it was liquidations of his pension through his partner where liquidation of the stock through his former employer all by the that she's entitled to twenty or thirty or fifty rather oh dollars a month well she is making a claim on them for a certain amount of money per month per the burden of going forward is usually on  proponent of the claim fifty thousand dollars a year i think in the northeast he said minimum wage was thirteen thousand dollars and here it's twenty thousand dollars and i think i think even and i don't think that is the horror of this case or the that has to be taken into consideration and something that was taken into consideration by the  fifteen thousand six hundred dollars a month to no madness of course got which are not part of the road or the expenses of his new family his fiance and their children plus he's got to pay on that money because you kids he got income from the business for two thousand and nine through show off he's got to come up with a hundred g s and a hundred thousand dollars in attorney's fees to pay to her lawyers he's got his old lawyers he took thirty or forty thousand dollars in credit card debt as part of the divorce thousand found reasonable by the judge as part of the contributions and i think your calculations were right now he paid you got eighty two percent of those fees we've been eighteen percent for of the other so for all of those reasons i think just strictly was faced with a tough case here and you had to do some portion and between the parties he did assign birds to both sides and i don't think for where the has been head negative cash flow in if you look at the facts of that case the finding there was that the pay over their head purposefully made to sell cashflow constrained by that the court looks at is whether a person crime or innocence has taken any action at all to change their lifestyle to zora some of the alleged change in their circumstances and the did not the trial court find  don has to pay all expenses that will result in her having to sell her home that she lives in with her daughter in law there is no reason to believe that mr appelbaum will be doing anything other than continuing on with the hundred eighty acre ranch and deficit they'll be a life in which that liquidity will be gone and then she will have no choice but the so the amount of the budget deficit determines how long that will take x current rate it will be about four that's something that should be taken into consideration