after the after so my case and the court's decision was after december of two thousand and ten evidence of the value of these other bills prepay cvs and i would know that the judge in making this that process didn't take into account that the money he'd use that he'd borrowed there was an asset there which hadn't really been disclosed which was how much seed and how much chemical and how much fertilizer he had purchased with that money but there was an asset there also to i don't know that we have to get into that because again this was our host the date of the judgment think the in that seventy page decision made it fairly clear they're placing a value on these other formats says was a very difficult thing to do and therefore relied on a little visual look at the debt that's the value he the judge goes through discussion about you know if it gets sold and can cash flow which isn't really what is the issue it's what the fund value is of these item had acquired back to where the marriage the purchase price was two hundred dollars to finance the purchase of a two hundred ten thousand dollars mortgage so had ninety thousand dollars down payment at the time of the marriage the mortgage was one hundred thirty four thousand dollars keep the property that was that received that contribution so he gets his half but the judge didn't take that into account he was dividing the marital state and again he was dividing it he he was intending to divide it equally is clear i believe from his and having difficulty in turning the value so he doesn't include a value appropriate method of valuing or an appropriate when appropriate method of value a contribution is the amount of a contribution increase the value of the real estate found that there wasn't sufficient evidence to to make that determination in the court talked about not having information on how much was spent on timely each more how long it will remain functional or the dollar value of the peace productivity resulting from the timely so isn't a situation where the court just felt that it didn't have enough evidence to make that determination that's what the that's what the trial court said but it did have evidence it had the evidence of how much this much increased number one number two there certainly was evidence that there was significant money that was put into the towel and there was evidence that there was a total of fifty four thousand dollars but the title of all of their acreage and the amount of acreage dollars or twenty five thousand dollars here we're talking about something and they really are one hundred thousand dollars number one and it's also a benefit that mr janssen has and will continue to have because he's retaining the farmland so he will continue to receive benefit from it also again the judge have the proper evidence for figuring  contribution and one hundred thirty four thousand dollars marital contribution and you have an asset that is now worth one point seven million dollars well the states have contributed to the bat equity in the a witnessed was a separate issue in america residence was not located on the plane fire and it's located in the middle of mr janssen's parents farm in the clayton farm i'm sorry was paid off before the marriage is that correct i don't believe that is correct i don't believe that's  shows well there was one hundred thirty four thousand dollar mortgage and that was really weird all day to the father isn't that correct here's what i believe the evidence shows that there was an initial mortgage situation in ten thousand dollars and a mortgage to the corporation that is owned by mr janssen's father now they put on evidence and i agree that the court accepted their evidence they contended that that note was four i believe if you look at the evidence that that cannot be true because the mortgage agreements the mortgage one hundred seventy thousand dollars mortgage said that it was being done for a single no there are many issues that miss the cherry did not argue i don't believe she's abandoning those issues so if i did not get to a specific issue in my argument on microsoft's real please refer to the brief because i don't intend to abandon anything i just may not have done i think that what happens here and what's happened throughout the the argument of mr cherry years and i find no fault with this i'm just stating as a matter of fact that she did not try the case t court abused his discretion none of those have happened in this case i do believe that there has been some some problem with this and i would point out the court not in going through she primarily said that the evaluation of pharmacists were incorrect she pointed out to the cattle minus that there's more to a farm operation and cattle mind that in order to place a value the court we gave discretion or that it was against a manifest way to the evidence based upon all of this it's like saying well this was worth so much but what would they actually be worth if you sold them on that day it's a consideration i think we've got to look at consideration as far as a non marital land but i think we're going to before we get there i think part of our hostile people is in the hedgehog hey shrine land really is would be and reasonable to say that eighty five thousand plus thirty thousand five hundred equals one hundred fifteen thousand five hundred that was the marital contribution for the purpose of the has more it would be unreasonable say because i believe it's i together who did all the work and i don't question from everything that we've heard from everything presented in the argument from everything as far as contribution there was no contribution by christie what she did you got two hundred fifty dollars per acre when it was put on the farm but that's not supported by the record you got to show first of all of the increase in value of that without always because of the the effort but during the marriage gives me counsel isn't she entitled to the lifestyle that she was a test and see during the marriage i mean the record shows and i'm assuming this is a joint decision and stayed home and had children and raised the couple's children this i think we've got to look at the fact that during this this marriage that she had she meaning prestige is able to work and there is a there's an affirmative duty that she has to go out and try to support herself in some form  so to say that that cheers did entitle to meet the same lifestyle won't i have no argument back but i do think we've got to look at the fact that during this marriage that she did work at several different occupations and black money she documented lifestyle she had the benefit of home she got all the benefits but now she says a lot of the contribution what contribution and i don't take this i think it's really a contribution must be answered but as depreciation because at this point i think we have to look at the reality that there's only so much water in this well what do you want to call it marital property or what do you want to call it a marital property there's only so much bar that's going to cost forty seven thousand dollars a year for the next twenty some years to put that money in her hand that has to be considered i believe when you when you order me so he has ordered a child support the child support you pay thirty three thousand dollars a year in child support and he's got to make approximately fifty nine thousand dollars before taxes before he can pay even this child support and you put the forty seven thousand on top of plus any maintenance i think and then it that doesn't hunt to just not enough money at the same time he uses all of his saying i'm not the clerk of court but especially what what happened and you think you can have the numbers and you can tell by adding those numbers that we've got a situation where if you had the numbers again i don't know seventy three thousand dollars so it's seventy three thousand five hundred eighty dollars that's what made the last year and that's what it is and if you look at always when you look at what's been ordered he cannot pay permanent may not the money so i'm not sure what was on the stock you make but if i'm looking at page nineteen is memorandum which is c one one three three six of the records and he is just going through the information taken right from that i used the court made its own determination and perhaps what we're talking about was where's those scales because if you look there's also these pretrial affidavit that had numerous attachments to them also maybe is it that i'm just not sure