six thousand eight hundred twenty seven is you are you saying that the court right that the four hundred nineteen thousand dollar figure by including in there that same six hundred eighty six thousand eight hundred  up significantly maybe he was paying more because he had to travel to get it but i don't really i don't really know but i think the predicament that i know is that when you're putting on evidence for it done what he needs to do and i think it's incumbent upon the opposing party who is going to speculate and say hey these can't possibly be there so much are there they can't possibly be legal right well that's ridiculous there were eight transactions over the course of this marriage that are really traced by my client that were clearly identified paid back pay back the loan that went from one out to the another detailed thorough opinion after several days of trial and ultimately it's this position of the issues was reasonable was not against the manifest weight of the evidence this is a case where mr life received a greater share of more than fifty percent of the party's marital assets several of miss cresset's claims were denied she had no maintenance right this being an eighteen year marriage marriage she made some requests for contributions for dollars he also was the beneficiary of a trust in his mother's name that had some value which the court took into consideration and the court also took into consideration the fact that his income greatly exceeded and they still evidence tracing of all expenses for the year twenty ten we know there was an operating no we know what the debt therefore was talking reading don't pertain to prior expenses it had nothing to do  of all the expenses that had been those were just things that had been paid and i don't think i'm looking at that that we can tell that all of those were from two thousand and not that that's what he testified that most of that operating note was for expenses from the year before because of these financial problems but i don't think it's clear that every single one of those expenses or all of the debts in the operating you know was for the year two thousand testify to any amounts and therefore those  probably a fraction of the expense it and they they simply show they've got handwriting notations on them showing certain amounts were prepaid and so what mr lation was asked in  cross examination was isn't it true that if these expenses are paid into twenty ten we're actually prepay for twenty eleven would they be on that tax return and the answer was debts and when it was asked more detail seen i have considered all these expenses but the court considered mr lifeforce testimony that he had certain expenses and the court determined probably because of the prepay issue that he couldn't the court couldn't take a line by line couldn't take those expenses directly from the tax return and plug them into its analysis and and part of the problem is it was incumbent upon mr lightener head all kinds of expenses that existed at the stipulated date of the dissolution of marriage he needed to present all of those not just talking in generalities but present those to the trial judge to give him something to work with this president the one who presented the right and they also have i think undisputed evidence that the operating line of credit which was not rollover was both parties are responsible for their help would be put back here as an asset of the operation to be split up again when it's already done i don't follow that doesn't  know what sort of court this even though that was stipulated america more than consider that it's no longer part of the marital state because it had to be used to pay off the marital yeah which was the two hundred ninety thousand dollar but i'm not sure if i completely understand why that may be an issue other than later on if we're talking about how is he going to pay that this accident because we just  on you know we presented that stipulated exhibit showing the appraisal values we presented also exhibits showing the debt on it so it's fair to consider it the parties agreed to it so it's fair to consider  other issues in this case just briefly the trial court had some credibility issues with the witnesses in this case particularly there was a man named david rieff who testified about some purported leases that  going on here referring to the orders and the story for the testified that he was doing this because he was just hoping him out and so the court trial court held that those cases were sham transactions and the court's holding in that regard is supported by clear and convincing evidence if that's required because of mystery testimony and mr lifeforce testimony where he admitted that infamous taxes which is why the trial court didn't get for that and added fifty over fifty five thousand was fifty six thousand dollars to the value of the farm and mr lie sure didn't report it as a lease came in to find any of his profit and loss that mr lasher could prove that he had a person or a tractor that he modified and modified and i think there are at least six pages of transcript in the record showing detailing all the modification of again it being incumbent upon mr lightener to show that if you believe certain items were not in marital the church challenger tractor is an easier case because that going tractor because the dirt challenger was actually purchased during the marriage using both no clearly no marital and marital problems the issue of the multiple engine well and this do a lot of things that mr lightener didn't provide the court with the resources to do and so again we go back to you know these engines being alone well produce evidence but then being alone if the expenses are truly needed to be considered done with a trial court considered and produced documentation or even testimony of what the expenses w and that was not and finally because of the problems with this lengthy case where there were some complex issues the court overall found that it was fair and of the approximately four hundred thousand dollars as first share of the parties marital estate and tab again with done considering the fact that the court denied for maintenance request approximately thousand dollars was derived by taking line for a schedule f of the tax return and that figure was three hundred sixty three thousand four hundred seventy two dollars then adding that fifty five thousand dollars for the check in the grain elevators so we have to figure out what went into line four of schedule and again i think it is mr fleischer third to prove what that is i do think that there was an exhibit  lightener produced i'm sorry i don't know the facts number but that shows what went into his figure of three hundred sixty thousand approximately dollars on his tax return and so i believe that's how we determine whether or not that six thousand with that thank you thank you any ass and assets the money was given to mr reed in exchange for a nice of the equipment but even assuming it was a purchase of the equipment it really just changed its nature you bastion only he's keeping it that we're fine and then the church can deal but that's not where we're at right to testimony