dissolution of marriage the court in determining the value of marriage or not marable property for purposes of dividing property so valued the property as of the deed of trial or some other devious close to the date of trial as possible in this case the trial court has issued a ruling following its interpretation of that statute rather than the common law that holds that data valuation is the dissolution and this is resulted in valu parties was entered in august of two thousand and four the trial was delayed further a later evaluation date was set by the court after a motion requesting that evaluation be set for purposes of managing there was a hearing on all issues that means paella and ancillary issues the hearing was held in january of two thousand and four and the judgment of all issues was rendered in december two thousand and four the valu with not that important actually because there was only evidence there was not implicating evidence on the value in that particular case and that the property which i believe was a whirlwind pay plan actually was value even before the date appearing but it was the only evidence presented but there was an argument raised by lucine spouse that should have been a later date in december for that the reason that it was non jury an equity docket divorce cases and sometimes and very often in our particular county cases will be heard two days the smile two days next month because it's just  that says there's a presumption that property that's acquired you know after the marriage before the divorce it's marital property and those and that portion of the statute i heard it is setting a valuation date that there really has nothing to do with the marriage itself but it has only to do with the proceedings in the courtroom and i don't think that it's only marital property that we're talking about right all is a business and real estate and although there's no question that those things were fired during the course of the marriage the value of those things can have changed tremendously since two well i think that becomes and that's what they said in the case and i can't remember what piece it was but it might have been they actually cited three but what the court did next was was they at that they particular case i believe that he actually may have been one where they said that the value of the property should shoot or there was enough language in the order and so i so i think in this in this particular case is i mean there are fortunately there's a lot of things that i mean show the danger of not following the common law  have change and the assets involved are businesses which are something that are or more gammick than many properties that don't change in them like a business might as a result of the efforts of the three please the court briefly i want to say that i disagree with her valuation of what the common law what's my reading of the cases indicates that they simply use the  section in fact in the hale case which i think is the closest to what we have in the case of are they there was specifically in the statute if it was a value waited at the time of the not the date even though they left the grounds judgment intact i don't know why maybe just never made it up to the appellate court of the half particular issue because maybe it is still clear and you know that would be an argument that i would s but i believe it's clear that what the court wants to do and one of the reasons i don't want to jump around but i also looked at the legislative history there were so many changes in one thousand nine hundred three so many changes to the act that it really couldn't get and i got through counsel about this particular one because there were so many changes i think there is no doubt when you look at the act it's an act of will mission property equitable division of property and even when we go to that e division of property and i believe the statute is clear that you go it's close to the date of trial it's practical and i would note for the court i think one of the reasons th case is the closest some point this factor is that i don't know if the court realizes that i'm sure they do the whole record with santa we had two days of trial april and we were set i belie environmental conditions in august of two thousand we moved to bar that we were not notified of an expert ahead of time the truck truck or denied that so we could not go ahead with our september if you look at the record it came out you will find out that  environmental issues that are contained in the three corporations should be valued have any impact on the present fair market value of the three merrill corporate entities and further represent she doesn't present them to present any testimony at any time during the trial of the ancillary issues are asking questions of proposed experts of either party as to the existence of any environmental problems on the property in question further representation of the credo report that's the p v c report we got in august of two thousand poor will not be used at t trial arguments heard in the motion certified so we were in the case if you look at the record that gets we just like the groundstrokes movie enter but the final had already been six i want to tell you i'm a expert august april may june july four months after the trials aren't started so i do disagree with him on that but what we have is if you have gone through the records you will find that we had to go back to  and it's not acceptable and so that's how i think you might think you need to resolve the conduct no but i do think it's prison to fax it to ation to this court very similar to the hill in terms of what representations from me what was said what was done and i would note at the time that this was given to us chemists expert already testified about the business on the stand and we've had some testimony about both businesses and then there are some real estate in fall one was  reasoned and i think it's just as valid today as it was then he goes through this even though there's cases and in his mind and i agree with him that it is very clear on its face what the statute meant it's close to the date of trial this practical that it was meant to be the date the property is heard and he further said i believe in his opinion you'll have to take a look at that's one of the reasons you believe it was done is to make it very clear what it but i would note in the halo case which i think is a close to one there were material misrepresentations he left out values of two different things and on a i believe four to no wind they they opened it up and they said it should be i would note that i think when you look at this case if you don't do that then what we can have is the following let's say mr matheson business went down about let's say the real estate down we think that's happened since anything to increase the value during the time you want mary to mrs map us or my planetary what did you do and you will be credited for it in court here becomes the when you  yes because the proof is going to be completely different and i believe based upon the statute it's marital property and the burden goes on the person not claiming it's marital property to prove the burden is then it becomes the purview of the other person now why is that important whoever has the marital property is the one that shouldn't have the burden this is marital property it is because of the definitions that you read in the statute or sumption marital property because china is buying more scrap metal and get it all attributed to mr map this would be wrong because there's not a bit of this it's not miracle business to have an increase of value but mr memphis can show that you put some money and that's equal to that value or he put some money in and should have it that's a different story so like the market's going up and down the value of the business can go up and down depending on what they sell depending on market factors here or once you define this is marital property don't see a play around that because regardless in terms of what's found by the court if it's found that it is the state of grounds just me i have no doubt i have to have my expert testify to the whole same thing how much is so wrong but i tell you there are ways that you can go forward with that the alternative is to do like and i asked why i cited this to help me case the alternative is to be stuck in an area where it's completely unacceptable gave me that doesn't mean that either client would be treated fairly i don't know what's going to happen you give an amount you give an interest rate what if the market booms in the business were double that and it's all miracle business i realize his effort may not be a miracle but there are certain ways to calculate it cerny salary that's normal in the business what you should be done you can look in your expert look to see if scrap metal has gone up in china and other places as a market we have a pocket trend in terms of that but i got to tell you under five o three it's a very difficult section in evaluating property and i constantly have difficulty proving tracing and other things to get my client the money back but right now it's the best of what we've got and it works decently well most of the time i don't time and i think if you're trying to if you really look at the statue and you look at the options and you look at the other things we are trying to in and say you were paid twice in salary i want some of that money back you weren't paid enough i get more money i added five different running voters and i bought it not out of business but out of my pocket that each term determine whether you took money from the business and did it just a miracle or you did it out of your pocket yes it's hard and i don't have an answer to the part except it's hard all the time in terms of that so we adopt your  yes that's what i think courtroom all the time he's been a truck court judge a divorce lawyer telling you i don't care what you do wouldn't grant her in her nine hundred it's going to be the closest to the date that we can have it and we're having enslaved proceedings and that's how it's been done the whole time to set make it right now but i think you you know i think his opinion is very good even though he did it in two thousand and six i still think it's on point and i think it's the correct way to