we have here today involves part of the resolution of the thirty their marriage and the property distribution more was made by the center for the issues here today involve section five of the three contribution was to a farm corporation that mr staker owns a one third interest in mr staker owns one third of stinkers acres incorporated i which is a corporation of the other  compensation for the personal services that he provided to the corporation during the marriage and secondly whether the corporation be an adequate amount of wind for farm land she has to prove or me elements of the rate of reimbursement mr speaker is not required to prove anything and certainly does not have to prove a negative for the elements of  of the way to bring burst went for the first issue relating to mr staters personal services and certainly he worked at the farm work with his brother and his father throughout the marriage and provided those services and received compensation ira a compensation he received was both cash and fringe benefits and the fighting issue on the compensation of mr staker personal efforts resulted in the substantial appreciation of the value of his stock that we don't think mrs staker has carried her burden of proof they presented evidence that the value of the corporation increased over the course of the marriage but they didn't present the evidence that the quitter could make a reasonable conclusion that this was something different then just the appreciate the natural appreciation  them was one hundred thirty five thousand dollars a thirteen hundred percent increase over that twenty five year period or less the court in determining whether or not substantial appreciation was the result of speaker caused it to go up it means that farmland has there nonna tremendous appreciation run on over the past twenty five years up to the time of trial in two thousand and fourteen and there was no evidence  that the value of the preparation increased by anything other than extra real factors to meet to the efforts of mr state let's say we get past that point that the court says cash wages that he received any included the value the cost of the fringe benefits of him or c but for some reason he didn't value for all of the health insurance that the corporation yan speaker family the corporate party said three children so there were five people total the corporation paid one thousand three hundred seventy nine dollars per year for health insurance for the state the family in addition provided not only canceling just but fringe benefits to the employees of the corporation and that included family medical coverage or on the survival gear they provided health care  been included in this circuit court should have found that that number should have been added back and in fact if we add that number that very substantial change in the reimbursement for the takes place the four hundred fifty thousand our number shrinks by about half if you simply a bad bad twenty five years of health insurance and the after the way that the that you can't compare the benefits to hannah's deflated at the real inflation going backwards or twenty five year period with twenty dollars an hour or that he's using the same twenty dollars an hour and making eighty so at the time of trial he valued the fringe benefits eighteen thousand one hundred forty dollars but looking backwards to nine hundred eighty seven he him but that hand did nine thousand five hundred seven so you're are simple mathematical computations that you know i certainly would not expect the circuit court to make but i would certainly expect the circuit court to determine in its ruling that when you're comparing twenty dollars an hour in two thousand and fourteen to twenty dollars an hour making eighty seven it's not the same thing and if you make this simple adjustment and it just bet twenty dollars an hour at the same ring of inflation going backwards the way he did with the benefits what that means is that subtracts three hundred and six thousand dollars from the four hundred fifty thousand dollar reimbursement them so that you   that he made approximately ten dollars an hour when he work at another job that kind of big company during the same number of years so you know roughly ten dollars an hour we think was he has competent to testify and so again we have the same problem we're comparing a number that came off the internet by another an expert two figures that were testified to by an expert in figures  established by a gift of the father to their two sons and then the three of them on one third interest that corporation during the course of its operations acquired all of the property at all and source i am not a tax lawyer in this case meeting glad that i wasn't because i think the the family probably certainly took all the gray areas good inducting expenses that one might consider personal and that's consistent with what this family's goal is always been when we talk about this corporation if you look at the testimony it might staker if people are talking about testimony bill steve if you talk about the testimony everyone had in mind we're going to build this corporation we're going to make it something stronger make a legacy for the future this is for our kids or grandkids we will not take much out now and by doing so we will build something for the future we have this is our retirement is what mike said this is this is our retirement then when the marriage comes apart at the seams some years later no longer is it their retirement it's his retirement than she's got her eighty six thousand dollars for a one a plan from the law firm where she works i in in i'm looking at the issues that are before the court today i think it's important to have in mind what it is that  so the outcome as it as it is is that right is awarded amounts to eight hundred eighty thousand dollars consisting of one half of the value of the farm and jointly on which was five hundred twenty two been comes out of this case as it sits as it sits today with assets valued at one million three hundred seventy thousand dollars consisting of the farm the million dollar farm last the five hundred twenty thousand dollars he had paid through rhoda its life insurance policies and all of his corporate interests which is valued better than a million dollars the corporate interest is actually a million seventy four thousand at least it was at the time of trial so even given the reimbursement these folks started with nothing and he's a half a million dollars he had just done the ruling as it was we tried to mr davidson said that that the accountant said that the judge should use twenty dollars an hour and counting didn't say anything it's because he provided information for the court about what would be the figures if it was twenty dollars an hour what would be the amount of reimbursement for his fifteen dollars an hour and what it would be if it was ten dollars an hour and of course that is it a big impact on what the three year old lives but the recommendation twenty dollars an hour it came from me the question is what's reasonable in these cases and what's reasonable can differ from person to person i would submit that if you put this case in front of five different judges trial judges to make a decision about what the outcome would be you would probably have five different outcomes any one of which could be reasonable just to kind of indicated this was a close case i but perhaps it was less close in the dirt in the end decided reimbursement was more there is nothing in the statute that describes what must be taken into account when terminating out what what reasonable compensation is there isn't any metric that tells us where how to do you are particular expenses supposed to be included in in person benefits i can't answer that question the law though that is before the court doesn't doesn't tell us that most of these cases that have to do with the burden of proof that applies it's been said that this is a clear and convincing evidence standard when we're talking about personal contributions clearly convinced either having or is not easily met it applies if there was any doubt about whether it doesn't apply in this the cost of flying amendments to the marriage and just motion of marriage act it went into effect january first should tell us this is not the case because it separates out  of proof is dicta it was a case involving premarital attribution by a wife who were nine nergal property of the husband and the decision had to do with the inability to obtain that it is that the real question i mean the terms of pretty clear and the substantial krishi she uses is all the assets that the corporation was able to acquire well it is you know if you understand business which i know you do most of us do is corporation's books by twenty thirteen was about two point five million according to mr david since expert mr gilbert it was about three point two billion dollars of or cost less the fair market value they listed in their their their financial statement exhibit sixteen is only three hundred three hundred seventy two thousand for the difference yes but if you want  years i didn't change it was the same amount from the first day he worked for the corporation the last day one thousand three hundred twenty nine dollars a month that's cash r the corporation grew in they got by this verdict mr davidson mentioned the three hundred thirty nine dollars an acre figure that was if you look at the exhibit twenty nine you'll see that was used once one year one arguments or submissions to go to honor wasn't really argue the trial or even discuss the trial one thing that every witness said is we won't charge less than market rent for this property as a means to grow the value of the corporation so it was less than market question is the judge acted within his discretion in setting him out from what fair market rent should have been did the act judge act within  taking into account that the real estate taxes paid on that farm property but this testimony was clear that that was for the use of the past year otherwise nothing was paid for the use of cash or in a corporation w count the two hundred seventy two thousand dollars marital reimbursement if you leave the marriage the six hundred eight thousand dollars she works as a secretary might works as a farm hand that's pretty darn good for that family to come up with that kind value of his services he just used twenty dollars an hour as a reference point and that reference point was then morphed into mr wing's recommendation to the circuit court and that was the decision of the circuit can prove the value of his personal services there was no room for the circuit court to determine whether or not his personal services were adequately compensated during the marriage now the net we presented evidence that the fact that the evidence show that he made approximately forty eight thousand dollars per year at the time of trial a picture that was benefits and gasoline for the cars and and and you know we're not we're not in the firm a corporation the non owner of the interest that he received from his father versus what is mistaken title to as part of the reimbursement claim i'm not saying it's zero but i don't think it's five hundred eighty three thousand dollars that if he just much you think i think it's about one hundred in half if you take off the the value of that of the health care and who deflate the twenty dollars an hour at