because it included in the marital assets all of the property helped by any business in which the respondent have an interest without regard to the interests of his partners in that property that at this point there was no sense to purchase a basis that was going to be the eventual outcome well without trial on the merits somehow if some point to another judge become involved other judges later on became records show that he began working at the board of trade actor he was married for the record does not specify that your honner actually doesn't say when he became working at the board of trade but i believe the fourth seed that you're referring  off that ok now we're in the green just those forget the fourth ok i was sold wasn't it to a corporation in switzerland it was actually sold before and it was uses  to purchase pounds so the three seeds now just the three cs any information in the record as to when they were wired i do not believe that it specifies in the record when they were a record also show when one of these corporations and tradin two agreements with two other corporations for the joint ownership but the seats i'm not sure which corporation your roof very well i'm talking about mr israel off and we shall marm i'm not sure how you pronounce her name but let me record indicate that at some point  at the same time when you are step up before the court to present proof on a default judgment you must actually met yet to take all efforts to make sure that the information you present to the core is completely accurate in this case information presented to the court as to what was marital assets was totally inaccurate there's an assertion that there will be under twenty here we've got a you've just told us that the record is devoid of any information regarding the acquisition of those seeds and when they occurred now do you agree with the general principle that the assets acquired after the marriage are presumed to be merrill assets we have that general principle but but i'm not arguing about all right general principle wait wait wait wait so we have a record now that you're saying is devoid of information about when the acquisition of those assets occurred but when we review a judgment of the court it is the burden of the appellant to show us and establish the errors and now you're telling us that you have no information as to when those assets were acquired and the record doesn't show that therefore we priests no we presume that the trial court acted in accordance with the law and that those assets were wired after the marriage and they are therefore presumed to be marital assets now how does the appellant respond to that because the assets that we're talking about their assets that were declared marital erred because you shown that these weren't marital assets but actually you haven't shown that in the brief for the record on appeal and that was your burden to show us that those were not marital assets and you have to do that with proof not by mere suggestions or conclusions but israel off the action alone that taxes the partnership agreement in establishes that there are forty thousand shares that she's entitled to them are made partnership agreement is in the record right this is where all of post marriage they're all down the road post marriage and they show that since they were wired host they are presumed to be miracle property now the courts already set aside a portion in escrow or israel but the but the matter the the matters not whether they were quiet per your post marriage even if the unequal distribution there's no indication the record at the trial court was attempting to give eighty seven percent of the assets to the wife in addition to the house and maintenance and other things we do have just a foreign half your marriage here call the sheriff now i don't believe that if that if there is not a resolution as to all of the issues that makes the whole judgment invalid as to the declaration that they are order i am not aware if you go ahead bifurcation order not that you're on but i do not believe that where they set aside a judgment that sets aside forty thousand dollars which the shares which are supposed to be worth more than a million dollars i understand it seven months later the default was seven or nine months later when he came in and it's so assuming that it was a final order the court is not required to vacat judgment and it can consider all the circumstances surrounding that judgment in in making its decision correct yes i mean what's the standard of review for us to look at what the trial court did when it denied in this case you do argue that the it's an abuse if it fails to exercise discretion because that erroneous li believes that it does not have discretion i believe that is abuse of discretion and we don't know what the trial court would have done because the court did not exercise its discretion in this eight almost ninety percent of the of the cd set eighty five percent of the assets to the wife there's no indication in the record that that's what it intended to do as far as whether it was done to punish him the court actually it with facts like this not paying bank maintenance walking out on the judicial proceedings driving across a neighbor's lawn to evade a process or walking out of the courtroom on the day of the of the of the prove up how can you come to the clearly the way you've argued calling on the board for equity you suggested and you've cited some case that suggest that we don't look at the three factors however there's significant solely on the cases that suggest that the courts have relaxed the requirements of fourteen on one i did i did your i think it's appropriate now to tell us without it being contended in the briefs raises matters that are outside of the record and certainly things that happened after this appeal was filed but what was the judgment the divorce judgment procured in florida outside party who is simply it boring those orders you don't think that there is anything any impact on the decision making process under a fourteen a one or even a one i think that's why the court attempted to order her to order fit if it looks like the court was attempting to order fifty percent of the prop of the the property but i don't think that the court intended to order eighty five percent of the propert so all the time is wasted all those core proceedings are wasted the drip of time spent drifting to judgment for the solution is wasted we should just allow people to just sit out and wait and see how it turns out and if you don't like it you can come  and those are dangerous often times the party doesn't appear they are not served properly they don't have the ability to hire a lawyer they're fearful of perhaps appearing but this is not that case we have a person stark who participated and who at some point shows not to participate so please do not compare this to the individual who is in the unfortunate circumstance of losing their home because maybe they weren't served this is not but it can at the point is they are this case two of this though when you you when when you offer up your that he had a low income but this is one of those circumstances where someone has taken an income tax return and run with it to try to buy that he was a very poor man before he got married and then he acquired all this property during the it's not my understanding that it was it's my understanding that that share was sold during the time in the marriage gene used as assets for the house that's my understanding of what what what was what was done with that particular share the court even i do understand the concern that the court does not want to condone a party from walking away from a judicial proceeding but in this case the results the results were far may please the court my name is keith home to represent pamela harnick they don't even have the amount that the court divided up it is now isn't that what the record shows i have to confess that i don't know that i can speak to that or refuted reciting something else in the record i would say that you know the trial judge render to decision based on all of the evidence that was available to him at the time and rendered a decision that was within the sound discretion of the trial court to render at that point i i would point out that what we have here is  situation with a litigant mr fantasy who chooses to come and go as you please and chooses to use the legal system when he wants to for his own benefit and then right in hiding claims that he's cowering from some mediator because he's too scared even though he makes million dollar decisions a traitor every day but now suddenly somebody tells him to write a seventh figure check and he's afraid to participate it should be noted that mr fandy is in this courtroom today he was in the courtroom on the morning that the judgment was entered and he chose to leave and instead of going out and filing some sort of a motion to contest that because he was served with the judgment two days after it was entered instead he chose to spend the next eight months running off the federal court removing decisions removing the case of divorce case to federal court as effective never happened then going back and filing a separate federal court action there have been a series of five cases lawyers the same lawyers that represented alpha else and the same one that went on to represent mr fannie that they were getting in trouble and they were pursuing this in the wrong way and if they wanted to they should be pursuing this in the state courts another action suing the judge who entered the judgment and suing the lawyers on the other side suing everybody else they could think of ultimately back a stiff this mess and it's only after they go through all these massive nations and use the legal system to us let's assume you're correct that it was a final judgment all right let's assume now tell us what we're supposed to be looking at what do we review what factors do we look at to determine whether or whether the court should have allowed this or not well up your honor just asked about thirteen zero one and i would respectfully submit that since it titian was not filed thirty case of the final judgment thirteen zero one could not mr and mrs as to the petitioner and the respondent in the divorce action every issue had been an aside the only thing that was left was whether there was in essence some lean right or some superior right to a portion of one small portion of the ships so that was held off to the side put as between the husband in the wife and what the husband was going to get the keep and what the wife was going to get the keep those issues were all fully decided there were no this section of it up until that point in time when he went back on the bench actually the briefing was all done to him i simply they might argue well what's your position with you're going to with the judge means i think exactly what you just said we believe that the appropriate standard is under fourteen no one now the appellant argues that the vincent case from the supreme court controls and modifies the standards of the use of discretion never traditionally of a by and they look they say to this case calorie versus roca but if you look at back case that was a situation where the person who had the chessman entered against them came into court three days after they found out about the judge they acted with haste they acted with diligence they acted to move as quickly as they could to have that set aside in this situation we have completely opposite we have as a victim who did everything within his power to avoid the state or ran all over filed all these other cases and then eventually eight months later got around to filing a motion and we filed that motion he supported it with an affidavit as he must under fourteen no one but the other fourteen zero one it says that the affidavit is supposed to show that there is diligence in pursuing the matter in the trial court diligence in big hating the judgement and america torrijos defense that affidavit is three sentences long and it does have that it doesn't even use the words meritorious defense anywhere it doesn't say that they have a meritorious defense of the case that was never argued in the trial court or in the motion itself there are clearly is no finding or no attempt to believe that when the first district in the calvary roca decision consider the other prior appellate court decisions that were post vincent and decided that there's really a two tiered standard that it never envisioned that what we were going now going to do is give everybody a free appeal a free pass and let's just go see if how the justices look at the facts differently than what we think the the trial court would have done keep in mind this is not an appeal on the merits of a decision that was made this is an issue as to whether or not a judgment should have been vacated when somebody was a participant in the proceedings up until a point in time and then abandoned the ship and now wants to come back and say i should have done that but please give me a please give me a second chance and that just simply isn't i think a lot of step that this court should be prepared to take or standard that it should be prepared  it would completely vitiate any sense of the standard of review for a fourteen zero one just simply say well look at it if we if we we can just substitute adjustment for that of the trial well let me ask you wish do we have a in appropriate circumstances be duty bound to look very carefully at that however is there an obvious mistake here i don't believe so there's been no there's been no nothing placed in the record by mr finity primarily due to his absence that shows that anything that took place in the trial court was an obvious error it was so plain that it just now calls out for reversal let me ask you this to just follow up that my reading it right i don't believe so judge i think the situation is in inner plater they're saying look we have what we have you know it can be divided up time the judgment is entered the parties in the court corrected so that it adequately reflects the facts i think that's exactly what they're supposed to do i would simply conclude by indicating that in this situation we have a t thousand and eight divorce filing we've had five separate suits that mr fandy has been part of we've had this is the third time that there's been a case that's gone to the appellate court in connection with this matter and i think enough is enough it's time to hold mr fantasy accountable for his country mischa's disregard for the judicial process his own blatant disregard for the judgments of the court and the consequences of his own action or inaction or the fact that he chose for eight months to go fiddle around in the federal courts with with that with cases that even a first year law student would know don't belong let me just follow up in their brief in the cvo he's briefed they say well i fess position of taking that's fine it seems to me that's an issue to bed that after this court affirms as we think it should they certainly can go back in terms of a post judgement matter and sort that out of the trial judge obviously there were those that are you telling us that we should send it back for an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of issuers no i'm saying that that's really not an issue as it relates to the appeal that was filed by mr fan  that's something that relates to a third party holder of some assets that they can that they can pursue in an appropriate form if they're getting washed out and you know put arrears i think for exactly i don't think that has anything to do with whether or not the judgment dissolution which fantasy was there to clarify that at the time and number two the only reason that that happened was because fantasy had been playing games with the assets all along and had been transferring things from one partnership to another creating new partnerships to try again basically secrete those assets from the court or to divest himself of certain assets so that at the time somebody would enter a judgment of just dissolution they would be able to they they would see a different number a different picture i think at this at this juncture though that  all of that is really his self inflicted injury is there any indication by the way that the trial judge indicated that he was intending on giving a fifty fifty split now i think you know i think that i want to address during the course of what i hope will be a brief presentation three issue the issue of finality the issue raised by justice palmer and it had two parts how does this add up and then the issue with respect to the c e o s allegations that they're being asked to hold back distribute more stock and they have to do that i think i have to do a very brief review of the chronology mr israel in the parties mr israel off invested not a small amount of money a million three plus to join a partnership known as israel fan i think it's pretty clear with the name came from israel while in fantasy but the other partner was not mr fanning the other partner was an entity known as alpha industr critically and i think this goes to the issue of finality and it will go it will develop i think that the the answer to how does the set up before the divorce decree before the  when you have access to the forty thousand shares when you can get them from the cvo it that mr israel law goes to you that's about two months before the divorce decree so then the divorce to create gets i think that the one for the mistake i don't know how it was made the one twenty doesn't add up as i mean just doing the math us how it ended up if you take it at that point there was an assumption i believe the record indicates that there were three seats that had been available three seats converted eighty thousand dollars each to two hundred forty thousand shares none of them of two hundred forty thousand shares is one and we said waving it around or you're assuming he's got all that he doesn't have all that it's not even half his hearing got the distribution of his half of our seat of our shares and the chance that a perfectly sensible thing and said i'm going to set aside those forty thousand dollars share those forty shares and i would submit that that's forty thousand shares of the one twenty eight that are being held at c v i would say that's how it adds up to one twenty o in half to one twenty and they said we said wait a minute they had already gotten their thirty of our chair and the judge said we'll we'll wait and that will escrow that and there may indeed be i don't think appropriately i don't think bit i don't think it's a substantive claim but if the ex wife wants to come and claim somehow that she's entitled to some of our forty this risk rewards forty thousand shares she can do that and that goes to the issue of divorce courts can set aside what well there was the ancillary issues and still have finality and i could repeat that line of cases that well developed in our brief but i do think it's to be emphasized that well argument because it was not addressed in the reply brief is this mr fantasy has no claim to any portion of the forty thousand dollars forty thousand shares as far as he is concerned all of his property interests and claims have been resolved in that that of the one twenty they hold that includes the forty thousand that they're holding in escrow pursuant to mr israel of plan so if you're with it we're going to write something what the do you want to stay right in reference that i think that is it as simple your honor as and i don't mean to be glib i mean that it's just a firm i think that to create it is clear i think that that one twenty correction makes it clear i think that if if i just never thought that there was there was any problem once the one forty scripted to one twenty was fair with the court meant to do and it set aside r forty and we will have or not have a disagreement with the ex mrs fantasy about her claimed interest in that forty thousand shares not withstanding the fact that during their marriage alpha i don't pretend to know anything about the horse but i will say this i think the real issue is now what she got relative to what was there at that time as much as it was that overlooking the fact that the during the marriage married got the value of those forty thousand shares so that was where she got at the time of the divorce ok let's keep on to that nap and distributed to him i think you take that forty thousand shares out and then you look at what's there at the divorce court i think it excludes because alpha says it should the forty thousand sure what about their claim that there was only a hundred sixty one hundred sixty i think i think that i don't i don't know that that was a record your honor and that's my difficulty with that the case i think that as i read what was before the worst judge and then the way we've interpreted it it was three seats two hundred computershare shareholder services and i just stepped forward to correct one misstatement that i believe mr hunt made or he agreed with just mcbride and said that the inner player was filed after work was filed before dividends on those shares and there's so there's no air whatsoever in the amount that your goal is we currently hold one hundred twenty thousand shares eighty thousand shares in the name alpha and forty thousand shares are in the name of fa action and take we don't even know now you can't tell us when the other seed was purchased but we do know that at some point this company  law was the owner of at least three different cities and it's not the lawyers or the individuals to decide when the dissolution action is happening whether those are miracle assets or not the only or and the only arbiter that can decide whether those are miracle s it is the trial judge those shares were israel lost and he purchase those shares in conjunction with alpha both contributed fifty percent  that here does not finally resolve those matters because first of all their lives israel out of council has taken the position that he believes those forty thousand shares come from one hundred twenty that was awarded that was awarded that's something that's before us but it doesn't impact and all of this judgment because it did not resolve all of the issues of the forty thousand has been resolved against your client because he entered into a settlement agreement in which he declare that forty thousand had already been received by him and the other forty thousand was left to be distributed to mr israel or his corporation they have been resolved but those forty thousand shares that are being held  as your client you think you think a bunch of people are fighting for those forty thousand shares your client's not but it depends on what other the remaining there were the order is worded in such a way that what's remaining goes to him so always to correct an obvious error there doesn't appear to be an obvious error here if she's only going to get eighty thousand shares that it's not obvious and that's a question of fact hearing because your client walked away and so if we can work if we can find a way to fashion a remedy here so that it doesn't have to go back to the trial court so more judicial resources are wasted that may be the better way to go