i think that's a fairly straight forward issue because this board has recently dealt with that exact same issue and her purse is very parm so two thousand and fifteen l lap or fourteen zero six thirteen in that case what this or it said was granting a leave to file an amended pleading this essentially a ruling that the waiting can be cured and further that the doct identity of the parties but i do not believe that either of the first two elements of why here first where we have to start is ease folks a two day divorce trial or intrude motion you can't be reopening cases where you've gone through trial just because things have changed after the close of outcomes that was not a decision on the merits it that motion to modify said his employment was terminated inherently different from the original post trial motion now when richard filed his post trial motion he was seeking to reopen the evidence now his allegations but it been premature he could have been seeking the wrong remedy as mr shearing impact pointed out to the crowd court instead of those for our motion he should have biles a motion to modify made notes after his former wife receives a nice inheritance that motion was ultimately granted roughly a year later he files another motion to modify in that case this court said circumstances and change and that a party is not looted from presenting new facts even if those is now gone another factor which then says that trial for shall consider is the decrease or increase of income of the if we look at the issues the issue in regards to the petition from out of a ship maintenance and that was filed may of two thousand and fifteen if it concerns the issue of whether or not had previously ruled on all three issues since it's the same parties the same issues same exist exhibits in the same pleadings it's a race issue to kind of situation through two thousand and fifteen and the motion to reopen the evidence or for the reconsideration there's the pleading that was filed at that time that so that was the it was argued at that time when the motion to reopen address the issue of bain was well to just taking things them in order of there it was so you motion to dismiss motion to reopen that there has been a change of circumstances and he's lost his job and the second thing was that he has received maintenance or a severance package for fifty to fifty two weeks so the court felt at that point  employment i think from what that we now know that he took a six month disability based upon depression that based upon that he did that get his  know if he went back to work full time but i can tell you on november the third and this all came to light on november the third there was a hearing on on these and he was asked a question are you currently employed no you currently have any monies damietta from your employer i have a severance package that we that was given to be in june and was in a amount where you pay the full amount in june or is it just over a period of time they gave me an amount in june for the remainder of this year and how much did you receive in june i think it was a neighborhood of forty nine thousand dollars and are vendor you know he based upon the fact that there was an identity of the of the issues here and i think in illinois we have was called transit and transactional test as to whether or not you know you don't have to have the same exact that that was considered i would agree there was no evidence presented at that time but it was based upon the verified pleadings that have been filed by  fifteen the evidence that was submitted to the arguments that was submitted in november of two thousand and fifteen was that if nothing else he was to receive his veins for some fifty two weeks which would take him until november of you just a couple of points it would appear as though that mr shearing attempting to argue evidence in a case where there has never been any evidence initially we had the motion reopen proves there was no finding of substantial change in circumstance there was no finding at all other than the trial court determined that it was not going to reopen the trial that had just finished and had just point ruled out there was nothing to preclude richard raising those issues later which he in fact did but he raised different issues later as is fact were different six months later his job was terminated when he filed his motion to reopen he believed that he was going to enter into a severance contract that contract was never implemented or executed those facts are explained and given good motion to modify what we have is an end to jewel was never had his day in court on the issue of determination of his  his amended potations to modify what is being argued by mr shearing here is evidence that was not before the court at the time these issues came now granted those issues could come up in an actual hearing on a motion to modify but that's what we are asking the court court now richard wants to be able to with again this particular issue addi mr shearing made the statement that richard can file a motion to modify that one has me scratching my head a bit because his change of circumstances is losing a job that paid him a hundred and ten grand a year if he can't raise that as a substantial change in circumstances where is he going to find that substantial change in circumstance basically this is not a situation where res judicata is a likable or should it be