here and the third question should come up and that is why there are not were abused its discretion in making the ruling that it did on so the first issue is should we be here and know the law here is that the court must look at the issue of whether what the substance of the ruling as opposed to necessarily as form but its form is really totally lacking there is no reference to what  cited there is no reference to what relief is feet most requested so as to end there is no statement faded such relief is granted or denying the court really sta looked and i do not believe we provided the transcript from that day over mr vili and i have both in our of are british stated that's what our understanding of what he said that we deal with the record i understand there's nothing so you're telling us today there's nothing in the record that shows such class sad that is was a panel board on september twenty fourth two thousand  and that he is is going to then quote him to enforce that w forcible even if they're not final aren't they i think they are but if but we have to go through the process of deciding each of the issues and he has not yet at that point gotten to the point of saying constitute may well have occurred up to that point now a final appeal order again the nine twenty four documentary was totally lacking in defining the primary thing keeping them from being a final field will or if that was the issue of having resolved the issue of attorney's fees in the january documentary does deal with that in a denies th petition of the petitioner for attorney fees  it did not specifically deal with the issue of what prayers there had been for attorneys fees for sanctions and of that appear both in the response to the motion or called for under that rule however to the extent that this in fact then is a made in a final order then i think we need to do the third point but again if the court here believes that the it's your job to know whether you should be here or not isn't well i don't believe that you know i believe that that is my responsibility but i also think that the fact that the court has had the trial court has taken a position on that final whether somebody labels it final when it's not final means nothing you in your brief said but that entry of january twenty first twenty ten does not make the september twenty fourth two thousand and nine docket entry a understanding why you're here while we we're here because among it it could be interpreted that way i think one of the problems that we have with the laws who currently exist is that it particularly the september twenty fourth rule is that it is very in specific and does not refer to what relief of is most requested and whether it's been united france but the september twenty but he doesn't say therefore i'm denying all requests for attorney's fees he says we deny the petition for our contribution essentially in the petition for interim attorney she doesn't the court said on that point it says as with the relative dollars the party man worked his way down the line relief awarded and sought the court also the party's over litigated this case the court declined to shift fees or fox petition for specifically mention the prayers for sanctions under the rule show khali the fair for sanction under of the response to the motion for to terminate or modify made an agreement with his brother to buy out his brother's interest effect rather decide to retire in the meantime he had been on a day trader on stock and had been very well almost eight hundred thousand dollars in kerio from last fall and that is the market turned down in the meantime his business which has been in continuing to grow of him had a serious  in that one of his major suppliers of the product lines he offers as a sensually of a distributor of beauty products mostly to mom and pop type of hair salon withdrew that lurk and was no longer offering it to him but was offering it through to its customers essentially through a big box store so you could go to the pharmacy now product so he tried to get another loan he did that and he had other problems with one and you can see as we've set forth him in the state in the facts are far and as appear in them all the documentation is what his income tax returns and those of the company reflect is that it is personal and as an employee of the business and be in net income of the business after payment of its expenses when from making him about eighty thousand dollars to being a net loss at which point out that he had paid some expenses of personal expenses such a statement on another things through business but there was no showing that that was any different than before money from the future to be able to pay of his maintenance obligation and only the law requires that i think of all requires that if maintenance is all for one of the looking to a question of that having the same drop in assets by the side for just using the income the parties otherwise would have joined at that time and that's not what's happened so at this point what we've come issue as back issue existed at that moment if terry stays on the post dissolution matter because he'd already did your motion to terminate maintenance in september twenty four come back on november ninth for here you're sitting there w that we've never done now i guess we can always say hindsight twenty twentieth's every case but i think what mr anderson should have done in this case for the former husband would have been this  if you didn't like the docket entry of september twenty four on nine then why not file within thirty days timely post crown motion for reconsideration whatever to reach these things that he's raising belatedly or if he didn't like the ruling then why not request a three or four binding which you never did you could have done that within thirty days or if you didn't order and i think that would have made it nice and clean way tame now it's disjointed i've had to write too brief literally for my client if you've got the issue number one of it's good attorneys and we're bound to follow the law and i know we all kind of mirror once in a while and i think this is a case where mr anderson realized with all respect that the documentary of september twenty fourth was not  and the result is he's filed a bunch of motions perhaps to try and make a final but he didn't ever do that correctly and then he filed not one but two appeals and then were forced to was pointed out earlier in the argument we had requested on behalf of my client for that transcript on the to the hearing in question and it never it never came to be quite frank with you so the problem is for him to address the issues that are still outstanding and then at that time in the year two thousand and eleven will have a final word which will probably come back and then we'll get back at that time to the issue merits of that is our position in a nutshell i really feel uncomfortable addressing the merits of the case i will if you feel it's necessary but i don't think that is proper because i don't think it's before the court since or is the jurisdiction of mr rose in one year and i think over five million dollars in stock revenue and up in other years i think he had close to a billion dollars in sales and no one to date has been able to explain to us or anybody else what happened to that five million dollars and even the trial court we pointed out in our brief on page forty that even the trial court blew twenty thousand dollars he drinks gambles he has a dog he has a new wife that he's supporting he paid his brother a hundred eighty six thousand dollars to buy out the cosmetic business it just goes on and on and here again  my new wife owns happen the next seventy with i'm the sole owner i mean these things track for five or six times oh i think all right wives is perjury and i think the proper pick up on are also if you look at the  and then a few years later he claims ari says he has no more money than you can explain to you what happened to the money and i think the trial court soft through that and ruled against him correctly because the evidence  we should be here today i know my client is going to be very upset when i simmer a bill for fifteen or twenty thousand dollars for basically two appeals that i had to do and i think that they'll want to be paid by mr rhodes or mr with respect to the issue of sanctions on i don't think sanctions are appropriate here of for several reasons but mr feely stated that i had several options when i made the conclusion that it was not enough the september twenty fourth two thousand and nine documentary was not a final or i can file a motion to reconsider well if it's not final that's not the time to do that thirty days had elapsed and as a result i'm too late to talk about it and its over and so it was his position at that point that in fact it was a final or so i think i was put in a position i had a least try to come here and give this word to say well it is or it isn't and it was my belief that it wasn't that i think it's certainly possible that this court would believe that having made the documentary in january after the november night hearing that then we are finally because we have dealt with the issue of returns even though as i have pointed out to this point i think that he didn't really specifically say whether he was ruling