also not qualified as an expert witness to offer that appraisal of standard view before the court was the abuse of discretion standard under in remarriage or answer the party offering testimony much of the expert has some special knowledge or that's an interesting way of running the business seems to me they use this equation this is what i invested in and this is what i owe and the difference is the value yeah i guess he was using that state that's what his interest in the business actually was aware of this or just which saw i mean what he invested in it have a value and is a value fair market value minus i factual allegations supporting each of the following elements first element is the existence of a meritorious claim the second element is due diligence in presenting that play regional action and the third element is due diligence in seeking relief under his attorney do his taxes and that could be a good thing for that attorney because it seems to me that it's pretty clear that that was that state a document that he documents there is a period of time about six weeks after she asked for the divorce or he moved out there with that stuff time she never said she had access to the joint checking and savings accounts she paid bills from the joint checking account was once a month well on your part when it went back in these proceedings were going on the front of the bill phone did did your client go out and get in on the new appraisal income from the bill so it wouldn't be unreasonable for the trial of the misrepresentations of about his income on the bill related not only child support of the mission of their praise or was this appraisal the numbers it recites i'd not going to be accept is the actual value or place of those businesses however it will come in for the secondary tertiary reasons if the state of mind and overall ultimate but if you look at the findings of credibility in the court's order they're very clear that he finds his credibility suffered in this case  raise and the house right i'm the mother and take care of these kids he tell these kinds of things i sign it he took advantage of this young lady she made three thousand dollars a year for surely i have the divorce he got ninety five percent of the time i heard of her for the first time while i was taking his deposition two and a half years after the divorce place she went to an attorney after the divorce with until you need to see it attorney does this lucian's and that's how i come to be involved in the case she was desperate she'd lost everything she had two hundred fifty dollars a month to live on a less than half of the child which she supposed to have and if you read the end separate reasons the court had in the judgment of dissolution or reopening this case the hearing that's also fine by the court he didn't disclose in that affidavit which our local court book requires the ownership of those businesses that local court will also require you list the value of your assets he never did that and was presented a piece of paper with no changes ever made to it signed it never heard from anybody in didn't even know the hearing took place until after a good place and there's a finding that do and suddenly six weeks later or whenever after the judgments e finds out he has nothing no money no job no education is what you believe in and they have this again she went to college now is a teacher actually four years after the divorce out of her own pocket large student loans children suffered because they didn't get what they should have gotten the support everyone one in this everyone lost in this case except in for chad who have control of all the assets and if you read that file tax returns late after thirty seven days never done it before why is that you don't want to find out in thirty days if you can come right back in a reopen that he gave her of things already made two hundred thousand dollars he had an incentive to sure the estimates the value you give are a false statement and submit that false statements of the court without deviating to child support to reduce the child support the only winner here is the person who did the assets never  especially with the valuation of the business the tax returns this is a fraud of omission he intentionally did not allow her access the information that she if she got an attorney if she had forty five hundred dollars he might not be standing here issued and right now