court thought he'd had enough information to make a decision without us being here and they indicated that i wanted to come down that first record simply because i think this is one of the with the court of that was entirely awarded to mrs burrell and samir is as a matter of fact the trial court decided that even though all of this property austin apartments in the seven units off but let me i don't want to get too far ahead of myself but basically the the worst starts with an order protection he use he is removed from the  office building which which the trial for said he could operate the business now during the dissolution process he moves in these living in a room full of partners now rental apartment an apartment that the set up and the building to thousand nine hundred fifty five dollars over four years oh as living expenses that was for everything if you compare that now he had to do that because the quarter we never replace those or put them back off if you compare that fifty thousand nine hundred fifty five dollars of that the court called this a patient for his living expenses  expenses the mortgage and all the payments to the house and all of this is laid off i mean i think the court knows that there is a summary a monthly somebody there's forty six of them in there detailing all the spen one who was that they kept harping on was is gambling there was one hundred fifty three thousand dollars now he did do some gambling op and i think of it but he also paid if you look at this in total for example mr burrell is accounting monthly to the court for all the income and all the expenses all the rental income from the apartment units in you know including austin apartments and all the expenses is usually break even or negative because he has to pay all these back real estate taxes because he's claiming she took the money the so but what i'm saying is if you for example eat percent of the case mr perot put it on and roll levon witnesses who discussed in detail you know they they watched him build lost in apartments or when the court when the courts  who did nothing with her life i mean she has no she says she works in the in austin apartments but nobody well so principle of law doesn't require an equal distribution rass just a just a fair one and after all but the judges judge kramer's decision makes clear that what he did was simply marriage mr brown was employed as a high school principal and so i believe two thousand give them books in the chicago public schools districts who i believe two thousand and two so while mr brown is working as an in principal and then as a school administrator miss prall was the one who ran these properties she collected the rents she call for the repairs to made when they needed to be made that was what she did throughout the marriage know it was commingle it was the other properties it was rented it was used along with the other properties it was not treated differently from the marital assets and that was the thrust of our argument and judge kramer's decision properties were not that there was some some acts some specific acts of transportation can you simply say that they are the ranch or something i mean they all was essentially garbage there's nothing more we were there were there were there was never involved up by a mr burrell complaining that we were holding evidence we turned over all the remaining business is that when we put these allegations of this occasion before him the burden shifts to him that he is the one who is expected to rebut the allegations of this patient was that and he never did that so the finding that we were alleging that he was wasting marital assets lifeways the allegations regarding his spending of money business money that should have been going into the rental business prednisolone doesn't constitute good cause good kramer distinguish this case right i believe is i don't think it's clear but i believe it's evident that the decision was theirs it was evident that we were judge kramer did and and when when he actually said evidence there is they presented no evidence they took on my twenty seven's and they proceeded not is it's not even comparable to the facts in this case the as i say there's not one witness that testifying that