this appeal a law professor many many years ago when i was a law school so you know you have to be careful about focusing so much on the trees that you miss the big picture income calculation but she did it wrong at appendix page nine of that judgement the court said that she was deducting the base housing allow inexplicably she does not has the baler case clearly mandates you must include the base housing allowance or other military allotments that are not taxable income in reaching the correct amount of income for amanda and yet the judge apparently used the housing allowance in calculating child support this is totally inconsistent and unsupportable and contrary to the statute so using the wrong methodology the judge comes up with a net income to amanda of three thousand seven hundred and forty three dollars she gets there by not having the three thousand seven hundred and seventy seven dollars a base housing allowance x free income benefit so she's getting free housing instead of having to pay a mortgage payment like matthew the legislature and the act and mandates that the corps calculate maintenance st without any consideration with regard to childs or once that calculation is made assuming that maintenance is awarded then when you go to calculate child support and you use the income share such as going to the website of h s h f s housing and family services you see there you apply him the amount of maintenance being received by matthew the doc the amount of maintenance being paid by amanda you include the sauce purity dependency allotment that the children get and then you arrive at the correct child support figure so what the court did was fundamentally flawed contrary to the act and as a matter of law it is reversible error and there's something back and looking at the forest we see that a man has a major in the air force she was earning a gross of about one hundred and forty thousand change our petitioner's exhibit fifty six if you calculate it the maintenance on the basis of gross income as the statute was in effect at the time of the hearing we arrive at a figure of three thousand one hundred and forty eight dollars a month that she should be paid petitioners exhibit six on the other hand her having lived at san pedro being on base there at the time of the hearing that made this calculation would arrive and reach a result of two thousand eight hundred and fourteen dollars  are you asking the court to use you know what is what is the law net income so we did any income now your honor oh innocence remanded i believe that you would use the act as it is currently in effect which would be the net income figure and so even using the net income figure you have amanda even though it's the result made that's seven thousand and twenty five dollars a month and matthew four thousand six hundred and seventy seven dollars a with regard to indefinite maintenance i think the pearson case the veil case out of this corpse and the stamp case the common thread in those cases i believe is that indefinite debilitating disease so long as the other spouse is earning sufficient income to be able to meet that spouse's needs and to pay me a man is a major in the air force and she can retire in twenty years she has a master's degree in electrical engineering when you look at these other factors which is future earning capacity the prospects for  degree but that twenty years of experience that she had at the air force she will be a highly marketable and sought after employer and she can embark upon her nd career in the private sector probably making more money then she is making in the military you look at the needs that the court was and the court again did not view the evidence correctly or objective way or in accordance with what the record shows the judges so that matthew is financial affidavit was only down excessive amounts and one of the expenses she pointed to was the internet i guess he should have the internet well you know the code nineteen pand she found exactly the opposite she said he is not employable and then she used the phrase half this time south even the court recognized and included that he was not employable at this time and clearly when you receive social security disability you have to be completely totally disabled from any employment in the national labor market for which there is any reasonably stable  job that you could hold and one of the things that i would suggest in testing this is to say ok to test the objectivity of this result why don't we switch the sexes and now matthew  now matt is the one who is on so security disability and raising the four children matthew was a military officer etc etc i think the answer is obvious now as your honor pointed out  in the future eight he becomes there are some merit call revolutionary treatment that can now remove him and eliminate the chronic and intractable pain that he has and now he is  of that's exactly what the act has provided under section not five that you have a right to and revisit the issue of that indefinite maintenance where there is a substantial change in circumstances but under these circumstances in this at this time it was clearly a gross abuse of discretion and i made i'd like to move on to the next issue which is the military retirement the majority of this military benefit is marital obviously everything after the marriage will be amero and when amanda retires we are simply suggesting that this corps instruct the trial court that it provide a person or vision that says when amanda retires from the military she will apply for the military retirement benefits as soon as it ministry of late we're not saying when she should retire or if that she has to retire all we are saying is that when she makes that decision and she retires she cannot whatever motivation whether it be spite or her ex  whatever intentionally refuse to apply for those benefits and that could mean a matter of months or even years in which matthew would not be receiving is share is marital share of the military retirement benefits why have the looming prospect of future litigation on this one issue went by a simple one sentence or one paragraph provision you can a woman a dollar the other issue with regard to the military is we have suggested that she be provided a survivor benefit plan for a few dollars a small amount of premium payment just like life insurance and the act specifically provides for life insurance that abby provided so if something happened to her and her untimely death then he would be receiving a survivor benefit is dispersed out this is a priority he's permanently disabled life next term to the issue of the eight weeks abatement trial support this is completely contrary to so with eight in which the court said you know if you're getting an extended visitation in the summertime you don't use that as the opportunity to abate your child support because you're simply fulfilling a parental responsibility in having time with your children and by the way the spouse who is raising the children those expenses continue while they're with you housing clothing transportation school expenses going to the children ready for school now for growing children here it was wrong to abate that child support and what is even worse is that the courts justification was to look at a temporary order and say well there is precedent for this and other words we were going to have a hearing on temporary child support and party to argue that any different provision at the final hearing and yet the court use this as justification or for saying the abatement must continue had it's going to expand this well this well very chilling effect on deter parties from reaching temporary agreements because if they think that it's going to come back and bite them at the final hearing why would they agree that a council can't and yes i understand your point there but then the court back off there a little bit i know you had a hearing on that most reconsider and and there were some other reasons given about the expenses for amanda as far as flying the kids back and forth so forth  and it seemed like in the in the order of the most reconsider the court backed off that position well but the court didn't change the ruling and it's clearly contrary to swifty and the ruling stands that's  wrong and it should be changed very briefly with regard to property counsel for the for amanda cited no oh my rule of evidence provision no case law anything to support asses holmes a brief history we had closing argument in september of two thousand and eighteen and over four months later the court issued its opinion in february of two thousand nine hundred and that was a sixteen page opinion there was a trooper that was argued in june and again the court took it under advisement over four months all in all the trial for had this matter under advisement for over a month and has issued twenty pages of opinion to this court must uphold the trial court's judgment if there's any evidence to support it and the trial court has twenty pages of judicial opinion incorporating evidence the trial court's opinion cannot be overturned simply because the sport might disagree or i have ruled differently given the evidence the ballfield about those gasol said yes that when the court's looking at maintenance well actually the figures is whether or not mr zucker was eligible and he had a obligation to carry the burden to prove that he was even eligible for maintenance before we take all of that into consideration and the trial  found that mr men who were was not eligible to receive maintenance based on a lot well i believe that the court considered the income that he had he had a the court granted him rental properties and mr zoomers testimony was that he was able to reinvest all of the proceeds from the rental property back into the property numerous testimony was that he was able to deposit the full amount of the children social security allotment into savings account approximately two hundred thousand dollars in marital retirement one hundred thousand dollars and i believe that the trial court found that with all of those streams of revenue to which he's not even  spell support awards and this court knows our discretionary the trial court performed an exhaustive analysis and ascertained that he was eligible and by the same token he was eligible for the survivor benefit plan from the military i believe the court trial court also properly valued the real estate each party introduced evidence from the local assessors matt cooper contends that it was permissible for the trial court to admit time and the abatement in support i believe that this court recognizes that on a motion to reconsider the trial court consider what was in the best interest of the children the best interest of the children and the safety of their mother as much as possible she has considerable expenses traveling to prom california illinois every month and then during summer and christmas bringing the children back to california with her and those expenses are due to the unilateral decision of mr super massive or permanently relocate to eleanor matt hoover's financial situation and needs were taken into account by the trial court and the fact that he's got these two streams of income from the rental properties and the children social security benefits that he's not using yet we're here today because he claims that he needs more any need t believe the trial court properly found he didn't need additional funds in addition to those assets that you've received in the dissolution and his annual tax free income it is true that the trial court said that some of his expenses on his financial affidavit were not credible it should be noted that he didn't even include the dependency allotment that he receives for the children david he also listed one thousand five hundred dollars a month in legal fees that was something the court specifically recognized they didn't believe was credible or was going to continue after this case it is certainly true that the internet has become a necessity i mind of course that this was argued and decided in september of two thousand and eighteen at that time no one had yet even heard of coded so i i don't believe that it extensive evaluation of the of the factors in their twenty pages worth of opinion we argued this case or presented testimony on this case for multiple days and the court just took that all into consideration in determining that mr hooper was not eligible or due to his other income streams the court gave him income producing properties being real estate was valued at a party may have the ability to value their own realistically however the court took into consideration the amount as well as the  when both parties introduced them and they use that to provide a value either party could have provided a appraisal or other evidence this is the evidence that the court had and i believe the court properly took it into the court i believe properly denied the spousal the survivor benefit plan there was no order that mr mississippi remanded to provide spousal support so the nile of the survivor benefit plan was proper the court also denied contributions to attorney fees after carefully considering the situation the court made a provision in its initial opinion the parties had several years of tax returns they had not and the court awarded or a lot of those tax free refunds to initially go to the parties attorney the court allocated marital assets in this case that being the tax refunds that the party said not yet received to paying the parties attorney's fees so that matter was was provided for the funds that were sitting in a trust account were provided to pay the parties pay mr man's hoopers attorney's fees so i do not believe that it is error that the court did not then award him an additional money to pay his attorney dissolution as i said he received more than a one hundred he received one hundred thousand dollars in cash received a home that he had unilaterally purchased mr holmes brings up that this was a older home it's important to note that the home was exclusively selected and purchased by mr zucker right before this divorce was filed he receives a home he receives every marital vehicle except for one two hundred thousand dollars in retirement accounts one hundred thousand dollars asked he's got over two thousand dollars a month in child support which is a considerable amount in the studio african region that we're in  social security back pay the children social security back pay as well as his monthly income from his social security benefits and the children's social security benefits else will but the court the court also relied upon certain calculations did not and and opposing counsel said yes but you know couple these factors were just where the housing allowance that the those were just small part of what the trial court considered again out of their sixteen page opinion four pages of those were devoted to maintenance and the factors because some of the numbers may not have been correct or there may have been some error in the calculation i don't believe that that changes the trial court's entire view that mr  had considerable ample assets and he did not need this additional revenue stream when again he wasn't he was able to save and reinvest the revenue streams that already this was  was relying on every dime that he was getting to survive he was able to invest in real estate he was able to put a one thousand dollars a month into a savings account for the children and the allotments those are all the the court considered including the needs of the parties some of the court's members may not have been correct but the overall forest was correct in the court came to the correct decision despite mis counting some of the trees these parties have said at the time they started the marriage the same educational level mr lugar had booty to advance his education and i believe that the evidence was that he took some the course of the marriage even after his automobile accident is consistent testimony was that he was working through the pain and what was a impediment to him maintaining full time employment was his wife aman military career that impediment has been removed there was no testimony at any point during the trial that is physical condition had worsened or changed between the time that he was able to maintain employment and the time of trial he was able to work then and there should be no reason why he's not able to work now yes he has been adjudged to be disabled by the social security administration however again there is no evidence as to why he cannot work and that i believe is something else that the court considers were considered the fact that he has worked in the past and he has worked since he was unfortunately in this debilitating automobile accident he the court also considered the childcare duties of the parties and the testimony of mr  was that although he helped get the children ready there were always substitute caretakers the children went to school the children went to daycare he would have loved his words to be a stay at home or however he was a stay at home father in the sense that he did not stay home with the children they were always sent to substitute settings whether it be school or daycare or otherwise so he did not abandon any of his educational pursuits to take care of the children  or or to provide care for the children so those are all the factors the courts considered and i think that the big one is matthew and the st point is matthew is receiving a significant amount including the three income producing properties as well as his social security allotment the children's social security allotment and a considerable amount of child support so for those reasons we believe that the when you look at the entire picture is there and the court clearly used the wrong methodology arrives at the wrong calculations on a very  aspect of what the judge was looking at in allocating property it term in how how this case should come out you can't say well it's harmless error it can't be harmless error it was a central central part foundation for this entire canyon can also make statements about what he received most of the liquid assets he received non marital property which way with regard to ability to pay maintenance and child support throughout this entire separation throughout the entire two wars she continued to have seven hundred and sixty four dollars a month bacon out of her paycheck and put into that these rental properties and they were properties that are acquired by matthew they were acquired by both of the parties and these are fine properties if you look at the tax returns that were introduced into mother is in such horrible condition that it is the city is condemning any needs to be torn down with regard to the assessment and evaluation matthew gave his valuations as owners of these properties knowing what they are what they're worth what condition they're in a cetera et cetera he gave those opinions and he is competent to give those he did not introduced assessed valuation say well  this but even for purposes of the argument you know the other side has to make an objection and if there is no objection made evidence the evidence or proper objections to clearly erroneous evidence of or vision of the own rules of evidence or any case law that would allow that evidence to have come in and yet obviously that was evidence that influenced the court's decision immaterial w heavens now with regard to mass being totally disabled from employment let's keep dad perspective counsel obtained by agreement the entire social security file on matthew she knows what was in there and fact the matter is is yet a very serious injury he tried to work for a while the injuries to his spine resolved a bit more optimal surgeries and as we unfortunately know in cases sometimes those surgeries instead of obtaining the hoped for resolved actually result in a worsening of the condition he is left with intractable pain he has to literally lay down for periods of time when he has that kind of pain the pain