hugely disproportionate distribution of the assets between the parties the second being that there was no evidence to support the seventeen thousand dollar a month made its award and in fact  with regard to the first issue that i'd like to cover mr nor received as the court concluded anywhere from eight hundred thousand eight hundred sixty thousand dollars of the total marital and maryland state while this is no org this is by property settlement agreement this is nord was awarded anywhere between two point three and two point four million dollars the parties head entered into that agreement before the court considered the evidence most important the fact that mr north also assume eight hundred approximately eight hundred forty two thousand dollars of marital debt and the trial  discretion to award seventeen thousand dollars monthly when mr norton assumed all of that his testimony and the only testimony in the case demonstrated he was paying thirty two thousand five hundred  thirty three dollars monthly to pay that marital bed off when you look at the distribution of dance outs this is north received seventy four percent of all of them and mr north received only twenty six percent and that's then on top of that he is ordered to pay seventeen thousand dollars in maintenance and pay the miracle that i would be roughly eight hundred forty two thousand dollars when you look to the seventeen thousand dollar monthly maintenance order i think the strongest evidence here on earth that it was an abuse of discretion to award that amount was mrs nords own expert martin verdict qualified c p a upon cross examination and upon review the resources that mr norcross had on a monthly basis i mean it will basis he looked at his two thousand and eight earnings they went through all the seven thousand dollars left at the end of the year and in fact that testimony by their own expert demonstrates it mr no or based on the parties financial circumstances at the time kerry would not even pay eight lavish lifestyle but the cost of them leaving them lavish lifestyle was if they were a million dollars in debt before this here these hearings started they only hundred seventy six thousand dollars  case so yes they live lavishly but they could not afford to do it and particularly at the time of these hearings and significantly and advance of these hearings they had in a home i had one of the country clubs in bloomington that i believe was valued at one point six million dollars but when they had to sell them they couldn't afford to live in and when they sold up and they also threw a million dollars into the house renovation but when they sold that house they only walked away with one hundred ten thousand dollars so yes they live lavishly but their standard of living in time of these hearings and for significant time towards the end of their marriage was not a lavish lifestyle and it could not be afforded based on the evidence that was presented during these hearings he didn't even he doesn't have the money to pay these monthly maintenance obligations then he doesn't know in looking to whether the seventeen thousand dollars maintenance was necessary was reasonable sorry reasonable based on again their lifestyle during the marriage i recognize that something needs to be considered i've just tr touch on i think the evidence demonstrated yes lavishly on the pets but they couldn't they just put the money is not there kathleen mrs norse expert again berry testified about her monthly expenses which were all based on reports by mrs north and which were inflated based on things that she thought she wanted down the road in other words they were they were considered or told about based on a rental she was ok but rather based on a house she intended to buy mr burke wasn't aware maryland non marital monies he did not consider whether her expenses were reasonable or whether they were reasonable expenses that their time in looking to his testimony included one thousand three hundred fifty dollars a month for may fifteen hundred dollars medical even though there was insurance approximately three thousand for travel  three thousand dollars for a close some of these expenses which even the trial court question but never the less twenty four thousand dollars a year to continue to decrease there are more practitioners in town there are younger practitioners in town there is less is this for him and so his earnings will continue to decrease from where they had decreased to as of two thousand and eight when as i believe the record reflects he couldn't pay the seventeen thousand then and he's not going to be able to come across no case where there was such a disproportionate distribution of the marital assets and i think that the court abused its discretion by not taking that into would have been a five thousand dollars monthly maintenance for sixteen months and the seventeen thousand was clearly an abuse of discretion unaccounted for income of seven hundred seventy two thousand and seventy three dollars to two thousand four hundred unaccounted for income of seven hundred twenty six thousand nine hundred eighty eight hours in two thousand and five of winnings how much he really lost who knows he certainly had no explanation for any of these things if you look at talk about a lavish lifestyle way beyond my comprehension i don't understand it but these are people who lived in a twelve six hundred fifty five thousand change two thousand and five one million six hundred sixty six thousand and change two thousand and six one million five hundred seventy six thousand dollars and change there we found for the course all the sudden drop from one million five nature of these s if you are going by the doc so if you look at these things we got seventeen thousand out of the requested thirty one thousand two hundred ninety eight dollars but if you look at all of all of this information in light of all other than that he's consistently had he still she's still getting about twenty five percent of gross right so i don't know how this court will look at this and say this somehow tropper views its discretion i mean surely the court  you know that wasn't what we wanted we get it but we can live with it it's reasonable and i think this is reasonable this is my time any questions if you choose to pay thirty plus thousand dollars a month toward that yeah well that's what the bank requires or that's what you negotiate that may be a question that we do see is your dr nor was it he was making the minimum payments that's what he testified to i'm not aware of any other evidence in the record to the contrary and yes so he'll be done with those payments in three years but he'll also then be sixty one years old so what's his earning capacity going to be when you look at his hearing past you now and you know wait when he's making these payments that the only evidence was those were the minimum