was not left out because of strategy or anything like that i believe the record is pretty good mr good time telling him or his counsel did not do what he wanted him to if you look at the transcript from june twenty second twenty ten that motion was never at the rocks there was never an explicit ruling on whether mr good time could get these other than their assertion that oh yeah my family's money paid for that property that is not clear and convincing evidence is just let me into my third point which was whether it was proven that those properties were not here and there was definitely lacking information that my client had requested regarding that bank account that i think could have shown a li on this issue but be that as it may if you're looking at the evidence that was produced and the testimony that was it listed i believe that if you go over this you will find that there was not clear and convincing evidence that these properties came from a non marital source therefore they have to be miracle so i believe the court brokered there by saying that those propert consideration with the trout were after the appeal was what evidence did you consider and that has nothing to do with the original i mean is that there was a proves or not i don't believe that is a procedural thing but i think the bank statements that were produced the tax returns that the parties can i think i say numerous things in my i'm sorry but that's just not how we should be running our courts you don't make promises that you don't heed especially when you're wearing black role you know the living should that there was seven thousand plus in the how on point if you look at the record that document came in in the trial midway through the first day of trial that it never been there was no evidence of that document before was in her name only when it was sold in the two other properties were put it turning only these are the only two properties of all that have that are in her name only if you look at page four of the board's judgment at some point about the time the breakdown of the marriage he left and the rents he stopped paying the taxes my client finds out just before the trial the taxes have been paid on all of the joint property he has paid that this day and new business property was hers and that's why he stopped doing anything worth it for the end when he knew they were going to divide their property he didn't hear about that because it wasn't going to be his problem any way they've been separated she finds two more accounts in his name as well that is been going his his house the whole time these poor house she finds ten days after the trial he wants to reopen and put in the two that are in her name he said hey look you're going to hold them up but for them all and i mean it's just fair unfortunately what happened in that trial personally i think because we had a p care let's just get on with this mess and the record as well the judge rules in the vision of the property i'm dividing this property and assuming it's fifty percent merit rather than two thirds because of what the documents show put these documents in the list of them all all throughout mr thomas pushing and pushing and trying to second guess as attorney second guess the who are all the things that got excluded or because they were properties and during the keys of the wife and saying take it it's yours is that binding admission on him whenever you say something in the heat of an argument to your spouse when you're undergoing a divorce i don't think that was ed by name that  opportunity to put on the evidence he wanted to put on it i think it would have further shown that was miracle money that went into these properties and just was even if you would think that they're not married off