me give a quick little roadmap to where you go in my argument today this issue legally is sort of a simple feel it's not presented as a very complicated issue for very good reasons that the issue is whether the division of property by the court in this case all of the law and whether it's a country manifest where the evidence and as set forth in the brief it's my client's contention that that's not the case the court did not follow that now in terms of the facts of the case the facts of the case are important and they are a little bit more money much more money then then in an interesting van the legal issue let me touch on a few of the key facts that take up this case and very simply this case proceeded to trial because the parties run or a tremendous amount of pressure to get this case done resolved and when they went to court when they went to trial i didn't include in that first day it was continued over on to october ninth and at that time all of a sudden  counsel shows up the day of trial and essentially throws this wind under the bus as we're not ready to prepare to proceed i'm ready but now my client and there's a long recitation of facts i cited it extensively in this statement of facts to try to give  so no responsibility for the situation and result of that is then it continues to trial eventually after a so the fusion of council in march of two thousand and sixteen and at that point were two years into the case and lo and behold on march third when th proceeds to rest and all of this is going on with the the trial court with watching this unfold in the record is very scant record that's in front of you it is a mass the proceedings are a mess the testimony is presented as a mass in the truck court recognizes that by then saying ok but both attorneys what you're going to do to fix the fact that there is not a lot of evidence that's been presented that i need to follow the statute you're going to put some stipulations you're going to come for present some statement of what the values are of things and that never happens that never happens in the case of initially a judgment is in or in december of two thousand and sixteen almost three years after filing now a year beyond the requirements for a custody decision and the judge simply issues a ruling and in that ruling he doesn't make any findings as to what his vision of property is and what i mean by that i think that could be a little bit misleading he makes statements of certain values and the norse others that are very important to understand he doesn't make any findings as to what the debts are they're being assigned in the case in this particular case he's that's what happens it's not clear from his judgment that that's what he's doing because he doesn't put in charge of distribution spreadsheet if you will that is not something that's how many ordinary i think you see a distribution spreadsheet in most every court by delaying the ruling by waiting from march all the way through december i don't know if the court was you know fully cognizant of what the ruling even was at that stage but her record if and and here i'm sorry i didn't  exactly where it was and that was just on russia's side and in the pelleas brief dr novice counsel cited an eighty thousand dollar seventy seven thousand dollar debt associated with springfield clinic stock also talking about debt and if you're leaving that off i mean i'm my client side on her appeal she's taking fish and it's an unequal distribution and we know that i'm that's your position if we're allowed to reopen the evidence certainly  suspect to be able to show that i expect to show that when you consider the actual debt that was presented and when you consider that the tax consequences which you're required to consider for division of property under believe is the twelve  if you consider the fact that there are tax returns being filed by dr nada where he is assigning all of the maintenance and spousal support to russia all about their huge tax consequences that are being divided when the court just throws up her hands and says well fifty fifty you take the dead assign  u and that's not what the law is that's not what five five of the three d requires of our proud court our top court is required to divide property without regard to misconduct and here i think there is misconduct i  think that something is going on with regard to these attorneys showing up on the day of trial and i don't know what you know what more to say about that it's very frustrating as a as an attorney to watch some what's going on in this case with miss out of the attorneys showing up on the day of trial and and doing this but if the judge then simply say well i'm just going to fifty fifty eight i'm not and that's not following the statute that's not following the law that's not making the statutory findings that the court in the law says you shall reap shall may that's not the judge going in and carefully considering the evidence is actually presented and making a division that is fair and equitable applying the statutory factors you  level to say look you are not going to do is not present evidence on a statutory factor that i have to consider i've had that happen in many cases where you know if the judge is looking at this say well i've got to i've got to know what what what the tax consequences are what is the evidence and that the judge just passively sits back watches this this train wreck that's unfolding in front of him and at the end of the day sits on the case without any ruling for nine months march to december and fifty fifty said and in that intervening time from the kind of this case proceeded the three years you have no evidence as to the tax returns that are being filed even though there's discovery that's outstanding there's discovery on the tax returns there's motions to compel that there's marital property and debts continue to accrue continuing to be there and there's no evidence on that and so the trial judge has a role in this has has a strong role in what's going on in this case and simply just did not  require the parties to fill their obligation to the court to submit evidence and so yes to a certain extent that is on the petitioner but i don't think it is fair or reasonable or consistent with the plain language of the statute to say that that they were simply waived did you see that there's a strong waiver argument that's being presented by the appellee and how do you wave statutory factors that are required if they haven't presented the  days and i'm not saying that truck or erred in allowing him to substitute in but then i'm not sure why there was this long discussion about reasons why if you're going to let him in here you have all these statements about payments to attorneys of twenty four thousand dollars by my clients of betsy worth the other tourney and her demanding twenty thousand to go to trial on this particular day and that mr linder would get in for fifteen minutes that is it blows my mind what is happening right here and right in front of the judge on the record i don't understand it and then on top of it i don't understand then when when there are attorney's fees listed in the debt when you have issued judgments on those when you simply say well we're going to fifty fifty that the judge that we're not going to consider that in our allocation division of property and that clearly was not considered because there are no values as required by the statute so and that this issue is a no vote issue i think that the public act ninety nine ninety that was effective in january two thousand and sixteen so we control in this particular case it added the language that we find in five zero three eight that the court shall make findings in valuation and all the findings you know you didn't because it's nowhere in your judgment it's nowhere in your order on the post trial motion and and i get it it's not fun to go in and try to reopen it and try to dig through the files it benefited these we've got to send it back to the trial court i'm not saying that every case that be the case i think that the court could have made findings and said there was no evidence presented on this or i but but then the facts are there was evidence presented on that well just take for example the vehicles scene he did not assign values to the vehicles right greg but there was evidence as to the value both parties presented evidence as the values and if that's good enough well now it's not because at the end of the day under the section you're supposed to consider for for property what the assets are being that are being allocated you supposed to be able to look at the the total picture of what's been done and when you don't include the values and you  vehicles and there's disparity if ten thousand dollars of where the number was here and you don't include the dead and you don't include a participation you you're worth three thousand when there's evidence of a one hundred sixty thousand dollars one hundred twenty thousand dollars the there's that some both sides of eighty thousand plus that are just ignored you're just getting an arbitrary division there's no way for the public order or our us to come in and say well here was the number because ignored all this stuff and if you're going to do what the courts suggest and say ok well there's value here but i just don't find it persuasive then say that and that's ok to send it back to the trial court and make him a deaf on the record what it is because that creates transparency that allows the appellate court and other people looking at this to figure out what is the division because it took me forever to try to figure out put together the chart that's contained the state of the facts as to what i think the divided to get to the position of you know this is maybe a fifty fifty judgment on the record is just leaving things out at which is still improper i mean even if it's fifty fifty i think it's an abuse of discretion in this particular case and these facts to award a fifty fifty a war  if you look at his alabaster earnings even if with the maintenance and child support that they paid one hundred fifty thousand dollars to her but he still has four hundred eleven gross you take his one fifty off or eleven he still well above two hundred thousand dollars has about one hundred thousand dollars difference of income to him which should factor in under all the factors for division of property you should factor in we're talking about the ability debt should factor in when you talk about the ability to acquire items for to retirement purposes all the factors that the court should make you simply can't when you don't have viking and happen dividing up sixty forty of them then how do you in a maintenance award then have the same findings as to what the income is of the parties what the what the position is of this this individual by by making mortgage and to pay the real estate taxes associated with that so all those things are why i've asked the court to three view this issue and in conclusion i'd ask the court to sin this back and have the sort of ironic that mr passport or starts talking about the a long history that took to take this get this case to trial and then a judgment and now what he's suggesting at this court should remand this case and we're now sent back and we should do this all again and what he really wants to do is just reopen it off and before i go much further i'd like to address he did not address my motion to strike i have a motion to strike the fortunes of his brief and his fiery because in his brief he used he uses in his argument matters that are technically in the record that came to this court that were not part of the directory in front of the trial court at trial and were not admitted into evidence t also then in the motion in a reply brief not only does he double down or is it doubled down and that evidence those documents discussed again there are also arguments made in th items where he makes an argument which was they make an argument which was not made in the original brief and it cites to alleged evidence in the record which number one prejudices us because we didn't have an opportunity to respond to such an argument because it wasn't made and further it actually isn't what he cites to in his brief is not really evidence it is a chart that was included in the post chronology and actually back of the second he seems to making an argument today which he doesn't make and is free but somehow the trial judge was ineffective in a way  his responsibilities and had he made such an argument in his brief there are cases that yes there are cases sometimes where a trial judge says do this and do that there are other cases that say that's not the trial judge's responsibility and in this particular case i disagree with counsel's characterization of some of the underlying circumstances and what was going on when there were these changes of counsel by ms ali which resulted in delaying this case from being completed in october of two thousand and fifteen to be completed in march of two thousand and sixteen but i don't know that that's really relevant to the issues in this case because the issues in this case are  i submit that the u rulings of the trial court ultimately the division that was made in this case is just under the appropriate and relevant considerations and he did not abuse of discretion in his rulings nor did he make findings that were against the manifest weight of the evidence with regard to the argument that under four o three a now there needs to be some specific statement by the trial judge of the findings that he's made in th best in the course of his decision i would submit that section does not require the trial judge to make a finding as to every single possible factor and every single possible issue and i also would submit that the rule does not require the trial judge to make findings where there isn't evidence of a value to require the trial just to make a finding as to the value and also that it requires the judge to make an issue which hasn't been made an issue by the parties with regard to the depths of ms ali i disagree that the evidence there's no evidence at trial in this trial record that establishes exactly initial brief that there really isn't any statement on her part of what is the deficit she's claiming was evidence and they were fiery the responses well just put it all together just add them both together but that wasn't the evidence there was no evidence that the d this stat occurred after the separation of the parties after the divorce that began there was no evidence that there is any requirement that she pay these families back these are monies that are borrowed according to her from family and she really gave no evidence as to why she had that debt what her expenditures were she was getting temporary maintenance of child support during this time there's just not evidence that makes it an abuse of discretion on the part of the not when he was discussing the property division go through and say i find that she's been a homemaker i find bad he has been producing income i find these sorts of things the judge does make those findings he makes and he states them in connection with his ruling on maintenance and to suggest that somehow this should go back for the judge to then take those same findings and put them in different portions of the judgement i think is is  as we said as just as harris was pointing out the values of the automobiles bank accounts but if you look at what she submitted the values of those items were if there was any error in failing to consider those values that was to her benefit because she was getting the car that was about five thousand dollars more value she was getting a bank account that had more value to it and i disagree that the division of marital state was fifty fifty i i would submit that she received more than fifty percent of the marital state she received the piece of real estate that i had greater activity and she received half the value dr a novice shares in springfield plan actually received half of value of his purchase to share his shares in the clinic which the judge assigned to him entirely so if you put all of those together she receives significant more than twenty percent of the marital estate i would disagree that even if it was fifty percent of the mental state that would be an abuse of discretion this is a case where all the property was the result of his employment there sharing any belief she's getting credit consideration for the fact that she's been a homemaker she's also getting an award of maintenance and i would again given that an abuse of discretion would be suggesting area having to find that the judge acted arbitrarily failed to employ conscientious judgement and in the word recognize friends of those i believe if you look at the court's judgment you'll see that that is not the case there was a statement by mr past letter that there were assets that were not valued and i don't know he did not say what assets he was saying were not valued i don't i'm not aware of assets that were not valued other than there distribution of those assets with regard to the tax consequences the only tax consequence that i believe is discussed in the brief the appellant is failure to consider capital gain in connection with a piece of property that was the rental property and so there was i think as was pointed out by a question of  justice there was no evidence at trial of any tax consequences a result of that capital gain there's no argument as to what capital gain consequences there would be at this point i'm i don't know how we could really determine what the catholic gain consequence would be at this point in time but further i would submit that the tax consequences in terms of the capital gain is not what the section of poor three which refers to consideration of the tax points consequences resulting from the division of the marital estate that's not what this is the case or and i cited case for the proposition is that bad deals with the imminence consequences of broccoli and what capital gains benefit there may or may not be when this property is ultimately sold we don't know and is not imminent and so i don't believe that that is something that is a consideration under three sections or entirety i said earlier i don't believe that it is incumbent upon the court to address all issues that could be raised by the parties which aren't being raised by the parties with regard to the debts there was no request by done it with regard to the attorney's fees there was never a petition for contribution of attorneys fees file and i would submit for poor nor was there ever a breakdown curing on sort of a ruling that the maintenance amount was incorrect we're talking about this would not only be determining maintenance but also return the child support and obviously the propositions changed everything gets changed also because what the practical vision is is a factor in arriving at the amount of maintenance the men the men of child support so again we're talking about a request on the part in this hour of three years after evidence shows in this case to go back and litigate the whole thing over again odd dollars is the notice i broke down in the reply brief the timing of that if you know pending on when you find it dissipates but there's one hundred thousand dollars in an asset there that's after the dissolution that's been transferred to that where the transfers are not the same  and not consistent with what the truck court found it in terms of the capital gains again the argument at trial was that the house which was a little house in bolingbroke was any entity called cozy homes l l c should be sold that would have realized the capital gains the parties would have have gotten that so that was part of the issue that was presented to the court that the court did not consider that as a tax consequence that there was direct testimony on its explained in the in the brief specifically the judge asked is there a capital gain associated with this or capital loss and as explained by dr knot of that it was a capital loss and it would be a sixty thousand dollars capital loss on the evidence again not valued at all when we throw up our hands and say well i'm just to fifty fiftieth's because we're nine months after when the evidence closed and we don't have any we've got this this egregious train wreck of a record so i'm not faulting the trial court for trying to you know  you know the fact that illustrates this appeal as much as anything else is that the appellee can get up here and say well the distribution actually was in her favor and i'm saying you know i'm saying no it's not in her favor we don't know what that distribution was because rocker didn't make any of the fines that are quire if you look at that and yes he made certain findings on certain assets but he ignored other added evidence that was presented evidence of the value of the debt seven of the capital gains evidence of the transfer to you know only that this appeal on does not include the issue of denying the relief you requested for real i think it's all part of it i tried to make a consequences whether you include the two thousand and fifteen tax return which which shows the actual evidence which i ask court reopen it chose not to do or not doesn't change the underlying fact that it is was not considered that the court make no findings has the income individual mean there is no finding that's been system with the evidence that actually was presented as to what dr a novice income was but you can read it you go through this entire judgement and you will not find it you'll find something about a stipulation is the amount of child support and the only thing that i could find agreement possibly relates to that is a thin plan calculation that was done by one of the attorneys that has no basis in and what the actual evidence was what the income was what the maintenance was the fact we paid vs what the template was calculated on  the truck or just didn't make the findings as to the doctor not his income that it's required to do so i think this court has no reason why it would not reverse i have no no no reason why you wouldn't follow the law as it relates to