slightly over one hundred three hundred forty thousand dollars dr gates retirement assets that he had liquidated he noted over one hundred ninety thousand dollars total outlay what is probably close to three hundred thousand dollars which found that in the second district's words available in the section by the one for him fees meant that funds exist so marriage for the poor is what is available me position that if they spend the feast that they were going to do it at their own peril regardless of having to put it in a trust account they're pretty much put on notice that hey you better put those aside somewhere i think most family law attorney said they got paid thirty five thousand dollars of that three months we understand that those funds may be subject to sources but also your honor it comes down to i think it would if the court ruled you indicated that the attorney's fees were earned was or any is there any question about the reasonable so the fees is and is a factor in and those all of the information you gave us about where the funds came from is  under really wine it's not important it's not motions early in the case to earn the retainer thus leaving the other spouse to respond to a mountain of paperwork with little chance of obtaining the resources to do so properly you think that was a legitimate legitimate concern that the stock still firms fees in that case were not reasonable or necessarily that if the to an attorney must reasonably and necessarily fill their files if their fees are not reasonable and necessary the can have constitutional due process rights and if the fines are earned by the entity belong to the attorney and they're free to do whatever they want that money even if we only take in the room until the end is another usual concern that's raised is attorneys enter into a contract with their heads to provide legal services for money if we are going to the ease that they are under the contract we are taking the money that they have earned under the contract and say you need to give it back to the client even though you've held up your end of the i have a not where the clock starts this case will filed her petition for dissolution of marriage in january two thousand and thirteen she did not file a petition for interim fees until june two thousand and fourteen by that time ms howe will had already been paid she had already attorney in that case had actually earned their fees because the b s p retainers although they become the property of the attorney upon payment it's a fictitious property and it's only designed to ward off creditors the attorney doesn't actually get to discords under the act i would urge this court to look at the record in the case and for all the assets that i described in the beginning of my argument the three hundred ten thousand dollars in in real estate be one hundred be the checking account appeal respectfully miss how will prevail that we are now standing in the highest court in the state because three districts are split on what the word available means in the statute we have no direct that also would defeat the purpose i think it should be clear i don't believe it is just an issue of whether or not a family loss or he's going to run through their routine i think there is a practical in which you do a consideration that there are  also raised the issue of attorneys have the right to contract and probably infringing upon attorneys