and this was part of it these were separate fines related to the writing of the books but no company related to the writing of the books correct i understand your honor and remember tard i point out to the co practice if it is her if she's built it she's going to continue to build it and he agreed to that it is her practice and then later signed it and owner agreement where the house was was purchase the indicating that he was going to make contributions that he never made me he has done nothing to fulfill his and the agreements he has been working keeping a place for him to live keeping section five or three i suppose it would be controlling if stuff from the fact that even in their police brief they see which assume for a moment that there was twenty five thousand dollars in america funds were headed to the purchase price seems to me the best kind of that contradicts even he contribute so that there could be a loss if i didn't at this point your honor this is an issue it's a serious issue raised in this entire case what are his contributions based questions about that in mr johnson's argument seems to me to equal accounts receivable with a favorable cash and there being only one shareholder to the company there would be no reason why that one or would be able to distribute those accounts receivable as cash that's where i think the biggest confusion is so we know that retained earnings is the profit of the company which  remains on distributed to shareholders it sits in the company if you have one shareholder that shareholder can go ahead and write the check and it's income accounts receivable represents services which have been the judgment you receive compensation for those royalties if you don't pay if you if you want the book you get that you have to pay the money the money is there it's paid accounts receivable means if that phone service and bills the patient there's potential for that patient now which take eccles in the accounts receivable bid and there is a potential threat she will never be paid for the they give me a misleader i build master card or i receive the funds from master card but it takes maybe thirty days or sixty days to get those forms from master card and then mr card goes over to the patient eventually it will be paid and you could be if you look at my explanation of benefits it could be years later but still both point is it is going to be paid and it is for services rendered during that time doesn't even really age of many of these so i think she needs a new accountant first of all but secondly not knowing the age some of them could have been before they were married but then they're sitting there for no good reason so their particular  testimony was a little bit incredible that she's holding things from when she started her practice way back when whenever that was so i mean you can understand if there's some confusion about what she's actually doing as well correct you're sure absolutely of that company what is the potential for collection dollar for dollar spending for credit on those accounts receivable factors into the value of the company you're correct  remains in the company and that was the first thing o reasonable for a doctor running that practice in the same geographical community if it was then the retained earnings doesn't get distributed if it wasn't maybe the retained earning proposition that when we have a non marital entity choir prior to the marriage in its exchange for an asset during the marriage it remain it retains its non marital character south street and we have twenty five thousand dollars of marital property put those two together here purchases the shelbourne property the shelter property is still not a marital twenty five thousand dollars loses its identity you can't find it after the transaction because it then for lack of a better word it morphs into the showroom property  burden subject to the provisions of paragraph two subsection c my on the state next a contribution to him to another state of property the contributing states shall be reimbursed for the estate receiving the contribution not was no closing statement there was no check i don't think either of the parties would have ever been in a situation during the trial to trace how much worse it really was at seventeen thousand five hundred was it twenty five thousand  because he says quote with out in meeting the this ability of the purported agreement in question the attachment purports to be a true and accurate copy of a document it a marriage contract which in vietnam is perhaps the way things are done there and it creates a legally enforced document in marriage if you will  another way i look at it is when i take a will get justice jordan sins of kenya and i say to myself well if it isn't a legal marriage if there is no song decision there is no government saying yes i pronounce you husband and wife i look at that agreement and i say is then off to create a de facto marriage relationship so i have a lot of confusion as to what that of our right in your or in motion for summary judgment there is a reference to the final four factors you say according to the final four the court should consider this factors and it doesn't look like anybody considered those i look at five ten c as a mechanism for determination of maintenance once order it's a modification right so there was a maintenance order here other than on a temporary issues that we're not contemplating here because we don't have to but it just seems to me that the legislators legislature cities of course and we are increasing divorce proceedings and so we have to determine eligibility for maintenance not whether it should be terminated or modified so the question i think your record has for me today is more than were at the  cohabitation it can ignore it because we're not in a five ten situation because we're not in a modification situation but it's it what if it happen twice it wasn't even continuing conjugal i don't know what continu judge jorgensen basically tells us that marriage is in a sense or like snowflakes no two marriages are alike so in miller we see that the parties post crude need not even be living in the same household to be equal hair and just jorgensen makes the analogy and says that there are many marriages which go on for years and relationship as if a marriage these are the fares that forty and sending money into you know after the business allegedly fails so what's he going back for