husband's pension had a substantial portion that was occurring before the marriage and also a substantial portion of those accrued after the marriage so when they said fifty percent as of the date of divorce there was necessary in this case because we're just taking fifty percent of what was there so we don't need to get to their point read it next because the language is clear is your position in this case that it was as awful as at the time worse and it stops there zero takes a lot of information that's not in the four corners of the document you either have to go to a case law which inevitably would involve some sort of expert opinion and i think vets in this case we have a terrace of my agreement where the parties entered into negotiations and this was part of it and this was part of it and they put a very well put in there and it was drafted by the at least attorney i would note so it should be construed against her but they could very well put a hunch formulae in there if my math is correct if that case had been around for at least twenty years for some reason take into account the growth over time you know where when it was the money put in the pension you know sooner or later depending on how the benefits are calculated under that particular plan this particular judgment i guess my question is when you're negotiating a beer to settle an agreement and you say ok wife or husband we're going to take the in exchange for taking the  the property may just be distributed differently is that true because a i think walter even in his testimony said you know he just he wanted it  that particular pension frozen in time because obviously then he would have more from his own pension so still there's a benefit to the bargain on behalf of the wife if you will you can argue that a exchange for the other the terms or terms may be related to each other and then they go on to say we cannot know what tradeoffs they made to reach the agreement so i would suggest that that change the the mirror sound agreement with nec change if you change this benefit wouldn't have changed everything divorce cases  benefit package right and still when the trial court came in and said i'm going to kind of change this from your perspective that upset the applecart right i don't think that i think it was a trial  one and again i would have to fall back on the facts that in that case you had to determine what you were taking fifty percent and the bet is the portion that it's another way to distinguish although i still think that that factual distinction is what really is the most important in this case but  gulf they're both talking about the benefits group during the marriage and i think that the four million should richardson and the formulas that have been used in the past in the decision by the court reflect in what the bush attorneys are doing with respect to their judgments of dissolution of marriage and the parties determine what the proper distribution was going to be and they reflect in the language that's going to be in the language and the agreement is fifty percent of the american action of the of the pension or in the exact words mr fifty percent of the marriage than the benefit would be frozen but that's not what the parties did the parties elected and the merits under very much drafted by different turning the middle son agreement was drafted in a way that took advantage and used all the language which men use and interpret by the case law prior to homes case and we look at the richardson case we're imputing in considering the time value of money and the delay in accepting and receiving these benefits and essentially through the continued employment during that period of time these benefits grow as a result of factors that are external to but consider in part of that benefit accrued during the marriage and so i think for me it would make a difference i would think it would make a substantial because it's what's on the table it's the question what is the middle portion of th she received a larger portion of the property and she received it and to top of the divorce not later the hardest part and i think again i don't believe the language ambiguous i mean the party bargain was that she was supposed to receive fifty percent of the benefits  does not comply with the terms of the judge in the dissolution marriage and that's the bottom line the question i think there's a couple of different questions in a couple different alternative i think that are being proposed by opposing counsel here one is using the frozen potion going are here today but i think that with my understanding of their position recent cases cited where the kwara was incorporated then you have a specific need a specific formula provided in that case the judgment controls and i would say the same applies here which meant there were many things that are left it says this right a part of this is just that and handed over to the administration we'll see what happens that's not what's going on that's not the case all the case law is it because it is to implement and therefore the court is going to look at what this phrase means and i think when you look at the think you just briefly i would like to point out that there is no way you can reach the conclusion that apple really is asking you to reach without going outside the four corners of the document you can copy the language of the judgment and paste it into one for zero and that will implement the intent of the parties unlike you in richardson where additional information was needed that's not the