employer forty years one of the issues that the parties settled at the time of hearing was that my client agreed to receive receive for receiving what he believed that she was receiving less than one half the marital ownership or the mirror benefit pension during the time of the marriage my client agreed to concerned about it and they came back and didn't and mended judging the final judgment on this was not a router and signed until april of two thousand and five sell some ten months later during that interim period my client continued to pay into the pension insurance sometime after that and the exact date is not clear in the record his now ex wife attempted to take out seventy eight thousand dollars from pension after penalty she was allowed to receive forty five thousand nine forty five thousand and ninety nine dollars forty five cents my point was given notice at the fact that it had been taken at the tension after the fact after it's already went against him and in that ruling i believe that the judge who had originally handled the divorce for that time was no longer sitting on the bench  and judge lewis was now one hand case he construed that marital interest and one half american interest and one half interest group were the same hearing that that's what his intent was as the only reason why he accepted all the dead this is only reason why he allowed her to take two personal injury actions in that there was no urgency people litters between the parties discussed and settlement where it was a first i think the court can based on the record that's here at at the time of the hearing the asking about the what the evidence was at the time hearing in front of the issue of the motion set aside my client's this is how much money she'd received in this is in the record she didn't know when i asked when she'd received it she didn't know when i asked what she'd done with the money she didn't know and i had a paper trail on all this and was able to prove all this up from cameron and from the records that i have from making records and then when i proved up that she had in fact purchased a home she didn't know that she'd done now and then when i asked what the home where the home was and where the money was i was going to ask for an injunction to hold that we got a ruling on it she didn't know what happened to the home of the she didn't own it anymore and she didn't know what what had happened to the money it was just totally incredible  bit crude all those things are different phrases they have they have means of art they have to pay a tax means in the core just lump that all into one one meaning and i think you're right i don't think the court really  construe it the way that i'm asking them were destroyed or at worst to remain to say that there was an ambiguity and to have that part of this decision looked at and said that the parties did not have a meeting of the mind and go back to from one of the pension account and he often had a conversation with his wife regarding that if provision in her intent to buy however it's not until three and a half years later of contractor and whether or not he judgement which incorporates the world settlement agreement between them are whether it reflects in however if this what he said what council just said you that was absolutely right is that it was done all the time and second stage hearings that really seen pension quire agreements are may and the parties equally divide americans what isn't and i've done a balance of times thirty years of practice and it's usually done that way what is not done is that one party short of the other part of being disabled assumes voluntarily all american that and that's what happened here and that's the evidence and i think the court can hang their hat on this why would this man agree to take all of the marital  a and the reason why he did i think is very clear from the testimony that judge lewis allowed and i think the reason he allowed that testimony was that is the court picked up on there is ambiguity in the language