with respect to the trunk or record your honor the record certainly shows that this was a fourteen year marriage it shows that mr back there's really came to tense when the company was facing a critical cry says by stepping up he asking at this point in time he is asking for the marital value of the stocks and that is clearly his position within the trial court he testified to and preach from talks about that in his evidence we know that the husband in that case wants the business we know that he had the ability to shield his income by keeping a new corporation he could kick out what he wanted to and he could call it salar invade those corporate assets at this point where this question returns freely on the two million dollars that we're seeking linda bowers would still be life with twenty million dollars in assets firstly all of which was acquired during without question she and her partner went to the c f o to get distributions when i knew they needed them and you can't just look after a three hundred thousand dollar salary and say that's all there is in terms of marital property  salary had not increased in the two ten years despite this enormous growth and we also know that three hundred thousand was not adequate because it wasn't covering what her personal expenses were and you know that how because she kept thing purchased with that miracle property in this case it started with the two hundred sixty six shares of stock it also coming towards the a new name and the life insurance policy and the funny bank account all of which totals which is to say income generated from personal after is indeed marital property even though it comes from is sufficient in this record to show that the distributions were not attributable to linda's personal effort when she bore the hats that she wore when she worked his business night and day stick a lot of culture out there's no question about it i guess in this case the drug judge  which talks about the divisions in distributions when it says president failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the fund used to purchase the assets were not distribute sions or dividends and does income attributable to personal efforts here we know they were dividends we know they were distributions if you believe in does testimony so with that salary income dividends are distributions the law is clear when they are generated in this manner and bought the two hundred sixty six shares shortly after the marriage began he and nine hundred ninety seven was purchased with money that she received from linguists and every penny of the purchase price in the property that was acquired before the marriage or in exchange for property acquired or before the marriage is also not an american so if it can be traitorous which it was very clearly present there was no factual dispute whatsoever every that went to buy two hundred sixty six shares team from lincoln was never went through a joint bank account it never went into reverse name the only issue that we have to decide with respect to  electric shares should be receiving dividends from her pre marital general electric stock the question would be is that did you come in that she's receiving from general electric even though she also works there is that that this is a fairly good sized business and to say that every nickel of income that was received by a corporation or that was generated in profits by that corporation over a fourteen year marriage was a tr dissolution of marriage and that's the question that he asked to be answered by a court that is the question that was answered by the circuit court linda presented very clear evidence from her expert witness that she had been reasonably stated for her personal services rick even agreed in his testimony that she was fairly compensated for her personal services if the maryland state has already received the value of her personal services through the salary and benefits that she took out of the corporation there's nothing more to reimburse the marital state for it's already happened while her the value of he three hundred was enough to get your wife to two points i met your mother first of all it wasn't limited to three here it was three hundred thousand dollars salary plus she paid all of her own personal  personal income taxes him over and above what the income taxes were the corporation she paid for a car she paid for insurance she paid for travel she paid for charitable donations all of that team from the fines that she  scripted to herself from the cloverleaf and all of that is clearly marital property none of that was used to buy this stock and the question that and that precise question is good faith by the public or any number of times the question is not could she have received more the question is did she receive adequate compensation and reasonable salary for her services the expert witness we kosik she did when there herself that she did himself said she was adequately compensated there is no evidence that she was not adequately compensated she received several several hundred thousand dollars for acting as the president of a small business in illinois pretty good work she also benefited from the increase in the value of that business over those years and that's precisely what the weapon rick is trying to  selling expenses which he explained in his ruling the point being that he was trying to compare cash to cash and obviously real estate is not cash in the bay which they also had a lot of was cash and he was trying to compare apples to apples instead of after just going to grow distant percent well he took a senator cent commission and then he took off some other expenses he announced at the beginning of the trial and that that was his policy and and that's how we roll out where he came up with owner and that's the income of the areas during the marriage was attributable to limbo making sure income marital property again that's not the point here the point is she holds fifty percent of this business she can't unilaterally do anything i think people that have partners in their businesses would be very surprised to learn that rick perry went to where you get along with your partner and where you reach accommodations and that the that that he had substantial control over the distribution of those assets because he was the company president and the court said no we're not going to get in and he only on the third there were three members of the board of directors and he clearly could not distribute money without a concurrence of at least one other member of the board of directors that's exactly what we have here and that's exactly what we have here this that this is not to say that there isn't any other set of facts under which we would find routine earning used to be marital property again is not the holding in that case there is no holding in that case that the retained earnings are marital property just the opposite the holding in that case is the retained earnings are not marital property and the discussion in that piece about whether or not control would make those retained earnings into a situation richard powers did contributed perfectly but the question is what is marital property what's the procreative distribution in this case of her found he was entitle to sixty percent of the mirror book state so to the extent he didn't our partner whether it was for travel or funding of a new money she accepted that as miracle income and it was generated from her work efforts it is merely a property by definition and this is where we get into mixing apples and oranges our position is under eighty eight which talks about personal current made home and seems to just write out those words personal effort but when personal effort generates income it takes on character property therefore everything purchased story in marriage is also marital property including the two hundred sixty six shares of stock the annuity the life insurance policy in the bank accounts which are  would just say if that i do believe it has to be ambiguous and that's where it is because of those slash marks and the c the low and the not all of that but i would also say that my counsel my opposing counsel talks about retain earnings screen marital property and we know that the immunity does too and so does the life insurance policy so thank you if i could just initially i thought with one sentence just simply to say in that control memo when