expenses there that she no longer has which would take her actually below the top forty dollars mark of work she had on all that she has to become financially i would not even go out on the say that well we are saying is that she should have an obligation to go out and that's why i'm sorry why so she's registered there she has her license she could go out and find a job the court said that the court stated that if she made something last than forty thousand dollars and that would not be a reason for him to come back and my child support which means if you add the forty thousand say thirty nine thousand on to the eight thousand that she's already getting in maintenance just that alone is would be well over that twelve thousand dollars or such an agreement it and prior to the motion to reconsider you did find that the payment should have seven thousand dollars in the child support three thousand dollars on the motion to petitioner alleged among other things that b to dock sion that the judge took for the pension amount which was fifty thousand fifty three thousand dollars should not have been deducted in his motion to take that fifty three thousand dollars that he was distracted at first and then take it back out then that difference is only twenty percent of that is only eight hundred ninety one dollars so nonetheless the court increased both  this is the part of this text that looks at what her needs are you know that her you justify your award that was ordered by the court and also the other factor along with the income each property is to look at what was the portion of the marital property and when we look at that own springfield clinic star which can only be owned by a doctor and so judge probably quite ordered that doesn't use her assets however those are all things that will go towards her expenses in addition when she purchased a house prior to the hearing she financed one hundred percent of it so at the time of trial her monthly payment for that house was two thousand dollars she testified that she was going to take the forty seven part of the forty seven thousand dollars that she had used  of i can see it every no dramatic effect no effect at all on how he's going to this life what's the point in your argument that clinic but that seems to be earned income that is by contract which is obviously voluntarily entered thousand why doesn't pay child support of that and i think judge if you're if you're talking about the passive income that we talked about at the lower court that's that's money that is going into the company but he's not  anyway that's going back on it because  spend along with that since we're talking about the child support issue when the motion to reconsider was filed the petitioner argued that that it was well taken with regard to the court's deduction of the world make a contribution but what the judge didn't say as we presume if you then took out the entire fifty three thousand dollars contribution was only fifteen thousand five hundred so the remaining amount was mandatory so if the judge did not deduct any mean trick contribution then that would be air counsel cites to a couple cases stating that we waived that issue i don't believe they should they brought it up for the first time in their motion to reconsider we filed a response to their motion to reconsider that seeding again that there was a mandatory contribution  elation to just take twenty one that's not the case here the case here is that if he did adopt all of the mandatory contribution that he did after the first time he's taken that back out there now that would be fair because he increased so in fact we would argue at the trial level initially for judgment and then in our motion to reconsider that fact or quote well may give consideration to the fact of including th one thousand eight hundred fourteen dollars if you used his act for income that you generated through work and through ownership in the company there is the fr million dollars in the short time this trauma and so every year in his was valued at seven hundred forty one thousand dollars at a time trial and every year it's getting bigger through the through his ownership interest in his you know combined efforts so i don't think there is any list that split off as a marital asset yes and he got the clinic stock at seven hundred forty one and that's what yes to pay her back three hundred thirty and if this is a fifty fifty division of assets if she didn't get any extraordinary aster she didn't get a very liquid assets and one of the cases that the i think supports the award or maintenance izzie issue is  out that she would never ever be able to earn enough money to maintain the standard of living and one of the standards of living is that they specifically mention was the ability to contribute to overtime and dr brower contributes fifty three thousand dollars a year to retirement plan and just because it was talking about my client's affidavit i find seven david has two hundred dollars a month twenty four hundred dollars a year as a maximum she can stick i mean that the difference is of why spout it is that she can maintain a person but he can maintain his enormous the twelve thousand dollar figure that is in her affidavit includes taxes based on what she owed then six thousand dollars made her tax payments are going up her actual expenses will go up if the end of the day when you take into account what was awarded ever she also has two kids at home one child now going to college but at the time of the entry of the order his own she did not work since zero one doctor of our heads so her you don't have to work even encourage her not to work and this this concept  k now a divorced person i guess a wife now must go out to try and work to diminish the potential income of a person that owns that earns on average five hundred fifty two thousand dollars a year that's doesn't include the two hundred going into the pocket he's going to give back when he retires if you throw in the two hundred for the pot this guy's making over seven hundred thousand dollars and you're sitting next howland this lady know put the kids in a different situation you know in her life so i was going down honestly and as you know they're living in a third of the house so used to live in there you know they say you know it's not like she's four it's not like she's contribution to or the money to retirement fund is not mandatory it all goes for one for one they have partnership agreements between partners that say that you know if you if you get into this thing we expect you to stay but it's not a mandatory part of his point and that's one of the difficulties you always face this is something he chooses to do somewhat like it was for her few system at all mine and i would also point out that throughout this entire process since seventy seven until right before the hearing in this case there was very little that she needs for her needs but you know i think as mr scott said that she i'm putting money away for retirement the fifty three thousand that the court to doctor is not all money that goes into his for a one k only a portion of that  and we believe that the money that she is getting with the award seven thousand three thousand four initially ordered that that would be sufficient for her