credibility what your recollection of facts issue believable that's up to the trial judge now apparently on a lot of issues he believed what she was saying because she took her figure by taking issue with  impressed not impressed is not the right word but accepted the fact that she had limited additional job skills because of the passage of time and it might not have been practical to spend a lot of one thousand nine hundred and ninety five dollars forty nine cents per month in order to impute income there must be one of three things voluntarily unemployment attempting to evade a support obligation or has unreasonably fail to take marital discord she started looking for work on that was before the parties even separated she knew that she would have to get some sort of employment and that's when she got the child begins to i care she even worked at it begins right here from august of two thousand and twelve instead what she did as she tried to actually look for a full time job she put in applications to a bank into a better clinic trying to get a full time trial unfortunately she couldn't get a full time job but the position at rest then opened up and she was able then to get another part time trial run and she worked in the mornings until noon or one and in the afternoons she did have the minor child still at home for part of the pendency of the divorce proceedings and of mature age this works at a mature age and limited skills she she's looking she's still looking to find a full time job unfortunately she can't find one she's on various websites that's  how jobs are seen now by employers so she's on indeed she's on get me a job and then at least two other ones she testify to and she works at those in the afternoon which is home from work unfortunately a lot of those are underemployed i think she has shown through the history of this case that she has actually been active trying to get a job there was no requirement from her by the lower court to do a job church yet she's done that and she continues to do that as mr have pointed on the judgment in september and there was never an agreement that we would only go back to that that i said it would go back to may of two thousand and eighteen when the child graduated from college it was that i wouldn't  a disadvantage in the sense that the temporary order that was entered said that he was supposed to pay two hundred and fifty dollars per week and that was titled partial child support with a temporary order so nobody ever went fight that after the child graduated from high school instead of just the continued up he's the child stayed at her house for several years she was there on the weekends during college as well as the summers and she dollars for the life when they purchase the law over twenty years ago twenty one years ago they never they purchased the live and the lock the vacant lot in the lock the houses on together the testimony even for mr connor was never intended to build on that made him line instead of us the minor child and then when he was a minor uses that vacant lot for motor cross so it was never intended to be appeal came back it was one hundred and fifty dollars and that's found at exhibit e eight the record so was only one hundred and fifty dollars and that was based on mr khan our knowing that the time that many years ago this is not of the little l it's not worth six thousand dollars at the time he did that himself so going forward the assessed value that was five hundred and ninety seven dollars at the time of trial and the department of transportation versus harper kind of lines out what you need in order for a living kin to make a opinion on their own real estate and she had knowledge knowledge of the land she's lived there for twenty one years she knows that it's flood of the testimony of kevin miller that expert that mr khan are used he valued the land at seventeen thousand five hundred however in cross examination it was pointed out that he actually had no current value for the land the for building a house on it even though that's what he appraised it for and then like i said after he looked at the pictures he testified that he would have to console actually with another expert to determine whether or not the law would even be build e and then he had no appraised value of what it is today and therefore the court then use the value that miss kind or at which was the five hundred and ninety seven dollars which is assessed value but also based upon her knowledge of living there its potential uses or lack of use as well as the fact that flooded so often so we do not believe that the core abuse its discretion in the way in valuing that live at the five hundred and ninety seven hours and the next issue that like to address is the tax or the court credited mrs khan our with receiving all of the tax refunds for tax year tw those years there was never an argument made in his closing argument that there should be any sort of credit towards mrs khan our on the on the spreadsheet ultimately the court did that says fantasia and added that in and when the court did that the court actually miscalculated with those figures were intact the closing argument of mr hart was different from what the testimony showed with regard to his client and what happened with the in in my reply brief i point out the exact pages it's an attached turns in the tax returns because you get adoption for your real estate taxes it's in the tax returns of each year with the actual real estate taxes are for those here yes ok yes yes i'm remaining are my argument argument is still that the core should not have to a spot it is taken that ten thousand five hundred and twelve and creditor her sister have never even asked for that to be a credit and when you're looking at the whole of the of the divorce and the assets in the dad's that's included already in there so even if she was soon arguing no even if she did get that money it's already included in our spreadsheet  funds so we don't think that that should have been credited at all and in my last brief i have a other spreadsheet that shows with the equalization payments to the city would be if we take out that ten thousand dollars as the court