determine that the person receiving maintenance has the of buildings or earned income to allow him or her to enjoy a standard stablished during the course of their the court can circumstance and this court are in this case rather it's not particularly clear on what type of award it was made but it seems to be that it was more of a debilitating maintenance award then the other  in this case in fact we believe that there was no showing that he really rehabilitated main its word was appropriate in fact trial court looting that it was not convinced that the appellant's help conditions were going to prevent her from earning a substantial income in the future we believe that was the incorrect regarding her income we learned from the briefs that she was in voluntarily terminated from her job so she wasn't terminated based on health considerations correct that is correct so isn't it reasonable for the tr showing conditions that either rose or head person from that time period including her fiber of my algebra but she had cervical and this generation disease needed i know there was a supplemental motion and we get a definitive answer on that it knew it was it it made it from my review the record i can't see where the trial court specifically made a ruling that supplemental record was court did not consider it was improper for to consider the position stating that her testimony establish that and the fact that she was working on a very limited basis during that same time period also substantiate that her health conditions were back to limiting her ability to work was the trial required to believe her testimony in that regard no that the truck or didn't specifically discredit that testimony year so that looks to appear that it felt that based on that income she could earn a substantial income but there was no other evidence showed as to what her income potential was to be or what she could relationship with the subsequent friend that is ours but we classified as an extramarital affair overwhelming as far as the that this patient and the expenditures that were being made during the time period that marriage was obviously now fact as i recall there was a higher rate during the same time period that i did parties decided it was time for counseling and then following that when the rain gauge his relationship with her there was yours and i believe the record did have in fact two one thousand dollars checks made payable to her  purposes and certainly not for the benefit of the merit of the state especially when there are separated half went through counseling which failed and then they've got these types of expenditures all the while these trips are being and i think that was the right as reference in our brief that was the same time period where they were one hundred going examination by the internal revenue service for failing to pay income taxes i believe on direct on cross examination rather he testif he provided the strips because they were having a good year financially but those trips are requested by his with her friend to take them there and provide the lodging in the big one so if they're found to be a that through some form or another showing that there was ongoing employment but that would be some sort of practice award these employees because he testified their employment was a very limited also in regard to the maintenance work and i guess the proprietary of it the truck or seem to focus on the internal revenue service status having some sort of that they were relieved from the tax work that he said he was suing then he could certainly file a petition stating that they've levied against his wages his bank account his assets something that would show that he has a present in a bill to pay the proper maintenance that i believe that would be standard to pay a substantial change in circumstance of what caused the trial or to speculate what's going to take place in the future awesome and that's very harmless i believe the court's judgment allocated to the i r s tax liability equally as well as the potential only department of revenue eighty thousand eight hundred forty two dollars for the two thousand and three two thousand for two thousand and five two thousand and seven two thousand and eight two thousand and nine i r s tax deficiency there was some testimony from dr blumenthal regarding the tax liability and that the court outlined its findings on in paragraph pin of the judgment in there was also a motion to supplement the records of mr scott filed post hearing the court allowed regarding additional information regarding the i r s that's liability there were levy notices or notices of so i don't with respect to the issue of dissipation the the trial transcript in this case consists of about one hundred fifty pages and there were roughly early it was served financial affidavit in the hundred fifty pages of transcript you will see that there was a lot of discussion regarding the lot of conflicting testimony regarding who had what records what records were available to whom dr von vall testified that there were a significant amount of financial records and business records that run available to him due to the actions of mrs true they're claiming dissipate based on transactions and and things that occur for which dr blunt fault not respond because he did not have records to discuss that's in the transcript in particular there was a question regarding what he did with particular when he cashed in on an individual retirement account if there is response was well i think i paid this off but i don't know it was in the it was in my records that i don't  ending with very snubbers and how things were funded and just reading through the transcript and it's not easy to find what she was referring to and it took me a while in preparing for today to try to  credibility of witnesses and i believe that's exactly what happened here the trial court considered all the arguments carefully considered all the arguments that were being made by everyone and on a one on one individual basis as each claim determined that there were only two actual instances of dissipated by the parties and those were charged to mrs blu in their opening brief and mrs blunt those opening brief she cited to the murphy case which was decided by this court in one nine hundred ninety four just next wrote the opinion the  in that case who's based on the husband's own testimony this court found that there was no abuse of discretion in failing to find that there was any decision of s s or that it required a major charge against the husband share of marital property based on the record as a whole there were a lot of for example accusations of implications of this a patient based on buying flowers for a coworker funeral gifts for a grandchild that sort of thing so the court was the trouble was called upon to sift through all these very specific arguments and a whole we don't believe that the drug works decision regarding mr long balls dissipation arguments against the manifest way of the evidence with respect to the maintenance award again the record is there or there are things certain things in the record but most significantly missing from the record was testimony from a not until later when ms williams was question here that she came out and talked about her fibromyalgia to general just condition her migraines that cetera and then later post trial they wanted to submit a letter that was not on letterhead mr scott objected to it they provided a letter on letterhead discussing her various conditions and the record does not disclose that the drug court ever made a ruling on admissability whether it was going to consider that evidence but at the end of the day i think that the crosswords mention in paragraph seventeen that the court is not convinced that deborah's inability to work full time equates to an inability to earn substantial income i think that can be read to bear on the truck court's credibility decisions regarding  evidence about her ability to work or her ability to not work again the mrs lump all was separate from one just prior to the divorce proceedings the hundred  fifty pages of transcripts and details of the different jealousy games of mr stud in one of those responding dirty divorce tricks things that happened during the course of the divorce proceedings and even though over her working one day a week was of her own conscious choice and she actually had the ability to work more over the trucker did not express a come out and say that i think that by reading that one sentence of the course not convinced that her inability to work full time equates to an inability to earn substantial income to me that suggests that even the trial court implying that that maybe she can work more and that he wasn't persuaded the trucker was not persuaded based on the evidence for it that she knew that one day a week was all that she could work again that's reading between the lines in my heart the i wasn't at the trial court i was not there to hear the witnesses and listen to the testimony judge out well was and based on the two days of testimony this is what this is what he came up with each of those two ordered mrs blunt fall one thousand two hundred dollars per month and then to come back later in about a two two and a half years to possible to re evaluate the situation and determine whether maintenance should be extended beyond what real ability of maiden's for a period followed by review is reasonable and something that the courts of illinois have recognized is appropriate mrs blunt fall her testimony was uncontroverted as counsel indicated dr blumenthal was not aware of some of her conditions prior to hearing about them at trial based on that we believe that the trial court acted with this discretion to establish maine is at one thousand two hundred dollars per month and to make it reviewable after a time served at page ten of your brief you indicate that when combined with because the maintenance would like knowledge maintenance would be taxable her and i have not run that calculation as to what it would be net for her and we were looking at the how the trial  allocated the debt on page five of the judgment dr blumenthal owes a negative one hundred s almost one hundred sixty three thousand while mrs blunt ball was almost a negative thirty four thousand so clearly we believe that the trial court acted within this question on the maintenance issue it's reasonable it's fair and it's logical based on the way the trial court set it up and notice was an excuse on his part because he's a licensed professional and knows what he needs to do to maintain that so to use that as a basis subsequently that there's been calls actions somehow prohibit it prohibit him from maintaining practice