point out to the court in the court's judgment in the ruling alliance on form a position paper as well as an exhibit that the court summarily adopted that outline what he believed was fifty six or fifty four forty six percent this review should you must remember in this case at this juncture at the trial which i think of her were couple of days she was represented by counsel he was pro s admit when i was referring to was the one that just didn't make it over the col i think the count you're referring to did in fact acknowledge on the ledger that it was reduced and the amount was one fifty six although we're arguing the full to fifty eight because of the one fifty six production some of that money was used for her own attorney's fees things award to her in which in the ultimate judgment the court warded each party for their own attorneys the problem is when you look at it and you actually start doing the mathematics involved in this position paper in the courts believe that this is a fifty four forty six percent split is that it goes even further i think not only own position paper being the slating in accurate and i would submit to a court that when you look at the judgment that awarded her everything that was in the marital home and we're talking about a very large american homes all figure it was seven or eight hundred thousand dollars home that was acquired while he was working as an e r doctor for a significant period of time that was outlined in the few big ticket items that were listed in there there's a substantial warrant that's not even considered by the court a substantial award that's not even given val even though at the trial level zero one representing he presented this is it testified to it there was no objection i feel as if in the the judgment it was just disregard not considered highly the the other two wars that were given to my client that were part of the determination of this being a fifty six forty fifty four forty six split was the go i believe it was diamonds are still a good guy and i would argue that there was very little evidence presented on the us that he is this really a phantom award because that time at the trial  presumably i mean that they were in the home i think testimony was he had them in the home and then at some point he he would be moved by we were protection and when he laughed i believe he was allowed in this w i would first try to do that in this case although he resigned it would follow more of the latter or the former and that is that this was more of a terminations you have an e r doctor who is in the middle of this contested highly and this is a visitation custody so now we move forward to the financial side and he is sixty percent of the doctor who testified in court that is best for you physician for fourteen years he suffers from these conditions posttraumatic that he presented i forget the doctor's name when it was a street in position for fourteen years of the to prescribe medication make the gnosis at trial i guess there was nothing presented to contradict this no no doctors of testimony coming from the appellate it was simply the belief that that doctor was complicit with my client like he's a friend or a but the testimony was you treat him fourteen years and we can for them even some friend acquaintance relationship but i think to what testimony is different and when you look at the custom when you look at the record which is very important on this issue it would seem to me based he's basing it on cross examination by counsel that it appears to be credible the other thing that i would point to the court is this bill because this is not a nonprofit nonprofit insurance policy has it's given him ten thousand a month after taxes he went that this is it was more difficult i mean there's a process involved there are profit organizations who who's the bottom line is ultimately what a corporation trying to make money for profit they're not going to hand out ten thousand dollars without some process screen to ensure that the individuals actually but the point is is the judge executed sign this review this was signed ratified indoors and i have yet most respect for the galley i think this is uncharacteristic but it calls into question how carefully this was reviewed or whether this was a case where it was put and signed off because those are conspicuous novice they're not subtle they're not hidden in the mathematics and i didn't even higher price waterhouse to come in and come up with one or two percent difference is obliquely obvious so the combination of those i would ask th i finished the case and he came in the case eleven days before the final hearing after four days of partial days of trial so this trial went on for four days without mr as very being in the case and then the trial and it in that case he was officially his attorney but he was not able to be there for the trial the court denied a motion to get tenure by mr cummings that day and we finished the case that so officially he did have trial but but i will agree with mr ask mary he wasn't there that day and  not a hard case to start it was made a hard case because of the actions of the parties dr cummings went through six attorneys and the case took four and a half years because we continually had new attorneys every single issue was litigated the facts aren't that difficult it really was a maintenance case if you take the case at the beginning it's a twenty four year marriage julie cummings is a stay at home wife and mother of six children now aged seventy seven and dr cummings was emergency room doctor and professor at west up in the i think you buy school of medicine he taught other e r doctors and there's no dispute factually if you look at the the three documents that mr asbury preferring to the position paper we f appraisal on part of the i do like roe property and that was thrown out it was not accepted by by judge the rest of the evidence all of the tax returns paycheck stubs all of the underlying supporting documents as to the values all the assets and that's none of those were dis and one thing i will pride ourselves on what we did is we tried to present a mass amount of information to the judge in a usable format and that's what exhibit a and b dead it gave the court an excel chart summarizing all the assets and that and put hopefully even throughout the last couple years of the case but even in the boy if you look at exhibit a which is the property distribution the way it is because the only way we could get things paid for there's a huge amount of that was the cash in assets and the only way to guarantee those being paid was to give the assets and the dad to join us because the court wasn't confident and we weren't either when we made the argument the dr cummings would pay any bills wasn't there another fifty thousand or so later on  paper the reality was also my all the money didn't go to the doctor coming because he wasted and didn't have any expenses going on he was living in there i mean like property with no running water i mean he he fell from making three hundred  thousand dollars a year to live in a bar with no electricity with basically refusing to go get a place to live refusing to get a job refusing to do anything the court  and the other thing that mr ellsworth projects that was there was an account with two hundred fifty six thousand that we had down to one hundred seventy thousand approximately that's true there were two retirement accounts that were defined contribution plans i reserve for one case and we asked the court to review it or receive those so that she could cash them in and pay this massive amount of debt that had been incurred over the last forty years so that's what the court docket so when we did that we put the reduced amount we put sixty five cents on the trying to simplify it so the judge could make a ruling because that was part of the problem is the sports were faced with a pro se the fan is harder than a case of i wish mr at rybin the whole time because it would have been easier present the case  that was consistent with the court making the point that they agree with our evidence that a j took it was also consistent if you think about it with argument during court that agent had no verifiable income after september of two thousand and  yet every month he was paying girls he had a two thousand six mercedes that had a fifty thousand dollars that every month he was paying you know eight hundred nine hundred dollars a month on his car payment he was by the end of the case he was living in this bar and there was a  february two thousand and twelve so there was about five or six month period he literally had no income after he resigned his job so overall those are the kind of fan things the other thing is the stress are very good that we put fifty three thousand  yes in a situation at it as counsel was speaking and again it's brief doesn't really address it but when you look at the dissipating the one hundred six thousand and one of these are not this patient money used for these expenses then you fast forward to the one sick the two fifty eight reduced to one six if you just end up the property she starting off with without getting all the retirement accounts all the problem other than that that the goal and dines she started off with four hundred seventy thousand dollars in what was the think was the children really should be visiting with him there because it's so there should be no we're not so again we have this argument of convenience when it's convenient for us visitation custody you know he's not saying he's