one thirty my client did not appear is it for the reason set forth in the record and she was hospitalized and we can go into the a later if decor w second post trial motions if the first post or our motion affects the final judgment in any way well how did how did the motion to fake it in any way affect that final judgment here's here's my theory and th am going to ask the one to the courts jurisdiction we don't use three sixty six as a vehicle to obtain jurisdiction three sixty six requires that we first have jurisdiction in order to exercise our desc and i think that it's quite clear in the bernstein case that you were citing earth suggested you would discuss as noted above the appellate justice in this cause simply did not have be contradicting of each other and then one reason three zero three a while a broad interpretation of three or three and one seems to say that you do have the right to file a motion after long term marriage which was then set up of basically because of the two businesses but she was forced to sell because she had to take them out of the mortgage if you say their brief that the mortgage on the building is greater than the equity in the building that's not true is that that's not true the building was worth what eight hundred fifty thousand dollars and the mortgage was one hundred eighty seven dollars was it possible then on the house the singer of the house was in in play much before the final judgment it had been discussed and i think actually ordered beforehand and there was sound potential split  proceeds if there was more than four hundred thousand dollars realized for the sale of the house but i'm a business on that property if and when she sold it she would receive the entire balance which i think is pretty close to the values that judges set there was nothing that prevented her from trying to refinance that was there not that i'm aware of but it's still you hear back you accounts even her husband's account her ex husband's account the business was successful and yes it needs a place to light and she must've had some equity in the business if not just goodwill just she's got clientele we the issue seems to be that these parties need to be divorced she broke the petition they both had gillis issues throughout the proceedings whether confirmed or not and the only way to resolve this to get them separated as the act calls for is to get them out of business deals together so we sell that property or she could have accomplished the same thing by refinancing but she didn't try that only raise some interesting interpretations of the bills i disagree and we are asking that  two seventy four in fact i believe that there are many pieces that interpret them in conjunction with each other first rule to somebody for is clear in this language that says a party may make only one post judgment motion directed at a judgment order that is otherwise final and that was there a deep fault in this case or was there a dismissal of the petition for dissolution of marriage and going forward on the counter petition that had been answered or at least acknowledged the marriage in the morning session of the day that the judgment was enter and then that afternoon session we proceeded on the kind of petition for dissolution of marriage had that actually been answered it had not been ok so there could technically be then called a default even though it now i don't research on this issue and the courts seem to be split as to whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction to hear the second motion or whether or not it just has a thirty or lack of authority to hear it but what is clear on all the case the thirty days to guard expired so i think that's the main difference there but even if we were to try to ohio that terry to the motion to reconsider i believe it fouls and based on the kids side especially the keener please let the court as you do is look at it on a case by case basis and see how the petitions were presented and what happened at the trial level and both of the petitions are not served persimmon to how i two fourteen zero one motion is supposed to be served response that personal service or certified mail registered mail and in fact these motions were both filed and searched be a service both of the two fourteen zero one motions you typically would have thirty days to respond and then it would be set for hearing there would be affidavits attached to two fourteen zero one motion as well as other evidence presented which we didn't have in this case in either of the motions in fact the motion to reconsider wasn't even signed by an appellant that we certainly had briefed and  heard of both of the motions in a very short order the motion to reconsider was actually brief and heard before thirty days and even expired and then we also have the fact that matters raised at that point and then a motion to reconsider and there were also no matters appraised at that time because everything that was brought up on the motion to reconsider as well as argued in court that day had already been argued at the time of the motion the vacat marriage such as income property earnings capacity anything of that nature so it did not change the actual ruling of the judgment  compliance that is made she came into court and represented that she had stage three cancer of which she was ordered to produce documents to prove that and she never did break before our second trial date she tried to continue that on the basis of  a business valuation which she had failed to do in the two and a half years of the case was pending and so after all of these occurrences when i got to the day of the trial it became clear to the trial court that this was just another  and her prolonging and delaying the case that he was not going to allow me to go on because there was the right of my client to be divorced and be done with this case after two and a half years i can't just the fact that she went to the hospital in the afternoon but there was really no testimony as to why what she said to the paramedics at the time and i believe it was the court's implication that she could have created the situation in order to delay the trial the argument there was no evidence presented by colin as to why this judgment and so was unconscionable she had the opportunity to plead and she had the opportunity to testify to it and she chose not thinks doesn't require any testimony it's called unconscionable as a matter of law what is there i'm going to familiar with that because i don't believe there's enough and the record itself to say just judgment is under the circumstances and the only factor said current raises is that one she was being forced to sell her marital residence while both parties lived in the residence my client was being forced to sell it as well this is a common occurrence and dissolution of marriages because we need to separate the parties says she wasn't being evicted from her home any more than my clients she was given a reasonable opportunity to put the house on the market she was also getting the majority of the share activity from that house her second argument is that she was being forced out of her business and in essence not able to earn income afterwords there is no basis on the record for that but i would say that she wasn't being forced to sell her business she was actually worth it one hundred  percent of her business she was only being on compelled to solve the property because my client was drawing on the property as well as joint on the loan and she could very easily either continue to operate her restaurant in the same location under a in new location or perhaps use some other means to earn income but the records unclear as to why these arguments are even being heard because there is no testimony from the wife of any of us so what w before you is that there is a thirty plus year marriage for both parties are approximately the same age the wife is two years older than the husband my client definitely has helped this use that he testified to the by had a hysterectomy and during the case she made her present teach and see even though they have not been provided medical evidence she made representations she had cancer the parties are an equal income during the marriage or at least at the time of the final dissolution of marriage so under the maintenance statute and under the current guidelines she would not have been awarded maintenance regardless and she was given a consummate seventy five seventy six percent of the marital estate she awarded five hundred thirty thousand dollars more than my claim it don't know how that could be found unconscious as a matter of law i would indicate that for the record you would get your argument with a note of appreciation to the court for raising the issue of jurisdiction and we have an independent duty of responsibility to examine jurisdiction in every single case before we get to any other issues so that is what was done in this case all right thank