settlement agreement only negotiated and by the court of course the provisions that we need to be most concerned with here today are a maintenance provision paragraph each a maintenance provision or until you no longer has an obligation a maintenance with the new and he passed away during the applicable time line and the reverend is going to pay my pay off my client the beneficiary proceeds but the purity county circuit court has ruled that that provision was intended to secure the payment maintenance and that my client has to forfeit any sums received in excess of what she might view or maintenance of through october first two thousand and twelve she must work fit any maintenance provisions in paragraph eight well paragraph oh and i just in my grief it in a sense is the security for the payment maintenance because if mr brymer became disabled during his lifetime or became brennan was required to keep my file as the beneficiary until october first two thousand and twelve or if maintenance terminated prematurely whether she remarried over live with someone or something but if maintenance didn't terminate that favors my client level because of the next phase of the way i look at this fee on a literal reading of the agreement as we get to the case law and i cite the those in any meaningful fashion make these state and not get around the holdings of those cases and i won't belabor the details of every one of those cases but i was getting the point that the way i look at this even if we want to say even if we want to say well maybe this was security for the payment of maintenance to conan these cases mostly deal with children the very common provision in a divorce decree or divorce settlement that says that will keep is that it has medical life insurance and dad will keep the minor children insured as the beneficiary on his caterpillar life insurance policy until the youngest reaches eighteen and these fifteen and sixteen years old and then the parent passes away and the life insurance proceeds kick in and then the families are fighting over well a child is fifteen or sixteen years old maybe of the parent had lived maybe and reach eighteen and we're not going to do the math in terms of well the child leaving the child had a one hundred fifty thousand dollar life insurance payout geez that's not fair because dad would have only paid another ten thousand dollars in child support if he had survived it doesn't matter it does not matter the cases are crystal clear on that one another another thing that those cases stand for is i called the courts call it when the parent dies the rights of the child support the right to life insurance proceeds becomes irrevocable irrevocably vested the court cannot do anything after the fact the the because in irrevocably of one gary renard's that when she was the named beneficiary and the trial court is my position was without any authority to do anything otherwise and the trial court  typo i want to point out that if the court is inclined to read the transcript of the truck which comments i think the court will gain some insight into what the trial court judge was thinking of the trial court judge used an example in response to my arguments and he said well it would be difficult to argue for mean it would be difficult for me to argue that if there was a life insurance policy securing the payment of challenge or if that policy paid out one hundred fifty thousand dollars the truck which i would be difficult for me to argue that if the child was only going to be entitled appellate court precedent it's wrong i think we can all speculate maybe the trial court judge thought it would be unfair for my client to receive all the annuity proceeds  maybe my client receive a windfall but that's a very slippery swill first of all it was an agreed settlement both parties represented by counsel so there  no windfall there is no unfairness in the completely negotiated agreement and also if we ventured down that road it's a pretty slippery slope there's a reason that of course courts are required to enforce marital settlement ran through some of the facts of the case i will also do the same as beginning here first of all parties were divorced in peoria county on up you know october two thousand and six paragraph eleven on page two of the judgment dissolution of marriage stated that the parties had entered into a proper settlement agreement the terms of which are contained in the judgment of dissolution of marriage the role of the paragraphs well that are involved in this particular proceeding period of six years he came in october two thousand and sex and ending october first two thousand and  or one stated that fifty percent of the pension annuity plus twenty seven thousand dollars should go to gary graham or the twenty seven thousand dollars coming off of the fifty percent that was to go to rachel oh to send fifty percent of the pension annuity less twenty seven thousand dollars would go to rachel withdraw any portion of his pension annuity the proportion that was given to him in paragraph old one unless he becomes unemployed or disabled and needs the money to pay rachel grammer the one thousand one hundred fifty dollars per month at which point she was in the forms that rachel barber had made a claim with the railroad company for the same pension since paragraph no one had awarded fifty percent plus twenty seven thousand dollars of that obligation may mean has not terminate at his death question to you is that that as it was truly the intent of the parties why isn't spelled out in the agreement well i think it is built up if you look at the whole agreement and if you look specifically at  and you know there are all kinds of cases where you know the individual the obligation for maintenance and the beneficiary doesn't get changed the person dies you know the designat beneficiary leaves that money to them and without it stating otherwise i don't see the basis for the court to determine that their intent was i because clearly it could been spelled out in here that you know in the event he dies she gets this is it spelled out pretty clearly in every other paragraph who gets what you know yeah and yes this is and because they change or doesn't move or is the beneficiary and he dies the courts of alba she gets life insurance however this case really is about what is really is really about how a court is supposed to go about equal first two thousand and eleven decision of the numbers the decision that the judgment dropper judge made after rachel member filed a motion for reconsideration and the judge then made that ruled on that motion for reconsideration is the word was dated june twentieth two thousand and one of them simply you know reaffirmed his april first decision but explained it more fully if you read those i think the judge was right on in terms of looking at the entire terms of of the going as a whole and determining that it was not intended by the parties that rachel grammar was entirely to get all of even if you present close to twenty seven thousand dollars does not state that the maintenance will terminate upon the death of either party in other words if there is not a clear and distinct bill statement in paragraph h or any other paragraph that judgment that makes it vision for example one scene i wrote down three examples while of sitting there listening you could have a divorce settlement where husband gets to keep his hundred thousand dollars c d n chase bank but for the next solicitor get husband off the note and if she can't accomplish that and the house will be listed for sale and sold in the parties would split the net proceeds of sale so that would be another example of where someone would fully negotiated with counsel on both sides mr bremmer was to maintain my client as a beneficiary of his annuity until a particular period of time and he passed away in the meantime and it's a simple as that obligation terminated upon the death of mr brymer but if we accept that is true then paragraph all over three couldn't possibly be secure in painting me and after his death until to your cross appeal at his death i don't think that that is inconsistent all on page one of our reply brief i refer to that argument or to simply agree to include the beneficiary submissives that the fact that rachel bremmer needs to rely on the rule of construction as opposed to actual language in the judgment shows that the parties agreement does not satisfy the legal requirement that you agree must understandably show that the parties intended that