and the question of whether or not certain issues personal property and the distribution of assets handed down by this court and two thousand and nine and we're also indicating that that should be a problem when there's a situation and our indication is that there's a the first and main issue that we're asking the court to consider is the issue with regard to the deferred equalization payment with regard to the property known as the johnson county property there is a piece of opinion handed down by the circuit court in mclean county illinois the parties did agree that this piece of property was to be sold and a disagreement between the parties wa mr adams said what hunt on this property during the months of october to the month of april each year it's undisputed that he is an avid deer hunter and there are a hundred seventy eight hundred eighty seven acres the area in johnson county he had much better knowledge of the neighbors in johnson county he had much better contacts and jobs mr adamson also took the effort to get to know the lay of the land and would take up to eighteen to twenty four months to sell out for mr adams since research and his testimony well demonstrated that it would take eighteen to twenty four months to sounds properly mr adamson indicated that he was going to do it's not just that he can't use it for deer hunting your honor the other complaint your honor is the fact that later with us sign is that mr adams and ms required to and that is also reflected in my client's motion to reconsider the property was assigned to my client for the spring months and a few assign to mrs adams and from month of october to april and it's clear that mrs adams and job runs because she has a part time job that runs eight months through the year those eight months of the year or the winter months the testimony also shows that mrs adams and his not even then the johnson county property about maybe two three times the last three years  character the main person keeps up this property so mrs adams and doesn't really even have access or know how to take care of this practice so even in the winter months mr adamson has to take care of the property so are you ar sell within the eighteen months to two years then the parties could have been brought back into court on review with different ramifications here are my fire also offered it was part of the trial court record trying to keep mr adams an off the property based off of mt what appeared to be empty threats by mr adams and however it all is it also appears from the record back and again standing on what my my client is also looking at the ruling out who we've heard where and if you look at the the court should not be using every powers there was this is been a long contentious fighting each other when they had washer and dryer when they could use the fax machine these two parties cannot agree on anything and therefore what this ruling actually appears to be is a soft box to mrs with mr anderson made it very clear in his sworn testimony during the trial that he had absolutely no reason not to sell this property because there was no way he could pay equalization and mr adams and had no liquid asset coming out of this dissolution whatsoever as a matter of fact every one of his assets was tying up and he had nowhere to live because this is not his primary residence his business is in central illinois everything he has in central illinois central illinois this was not going to be his primary residence and when he did find a home he was cross examined on that and here and it was made to sound like the primary residence that he had found was left out and had absolutely no rights in a company wherein she thought she had rights to a company that had it was thought to be a marital company throughout the entire marriage when it came down to it and she didn't have any rights and in that particular case with the court attempts to do was force the husband to give mrs wheeler a disproportionate portion of the marital stay in order to pay her in this situation was basically trying to make it fair that mrs adams in fact she was cheated during the period of temporary leave during this entire proceeding that she felt that she had been che had been divorced under grounds adultery and had been a very contentious divorce she ate what she believed to be fair period left temporary relief and  temporary for lack of a better word and temporary relief order and was told how she had to live and she had to share the american presidents neither party was we're going to make it fair by taking away something he wants the only thing mr adamson and that you have was his recreation and the only thing that he ever took care wise this property and he was the only ever phrase property and it really does throw in the face of common sense to have the only person who knows and takes care of his property and can get this property ready for sale to not have him down there taking care of it and getting ready for sale because nobody has a crystal ball however and each of the cases that was cited in the courts did find that there was no discretion again in particular when it the cases that were  when there's a withholding of apathy on a piece of property it's when the marital residence not a recreational residence but a marital residence is the equity is being withheld because you have a minor child or you have a custodial that's not the situation here this is a recreational use of my time is being asked to wait for his act and tell a recreational piece of crap yourself as for an indefinite period of time  has a part time job that is active in the record your honor and even if she would have to mortgage the marital residence it would only be thirty five thousand dollars and she does have that point your honor so short of that  there's items that issue were somehow finds that he had received from his family a grandfather clock and all the property in his bedroom which were bad some dressers and  explained to her what the high standard of review was in the appellate court indicated to her this was not a venue to come to to get another bite of the apple the parties here pelletier it's here on the third bite of the apple the trial court considered his motion to reconsider maybe one minor change on the property distribution  property needed to be sold as soon as possible granting him use of that property during the time he wanted to would have discouraged him from doing everything he could to sell the property and the court under right with all due respect to counsel like i do not believe that's correct i think the trial court did what trial courts do all the time with marital property and he did it appropriately and it was within the marriage that we were sort of an unusual case where the wife had been working for about a swims parents this was in the business was not actually owned by her spouse yes and so that was after interviewing my hiring on that he was counseled by his attorney to do back time i believe when you look at the grounds for just lucian that my client filed that's what started much of this animosity of this case and this is a long case unfortunately when there are no children even though it's a twenty seven year marriage much of this case is front loaded worrying about how to divorce these two individuals on grounds of because so much of the case was spent worrying about something else and distracted him to see red herrings and then we end loaded this case going from a few discovery motions  i asked him two times and i said to him this is your last chance mr adams and what you have around the house what you want out of american presidents he gave a very short list he didn't want anything out of that marital residence but a very short list of property and he was leaving