was a petition for dissolution of marriage filed in august of two thousand and four faces of the appeal here deals with whether or not the judgment needs the vacated before the marital son an agreement can be hundred five that personal injury case was being litigated for a substantially long time period and at the time that this edition of marriage was entered in december of two thousand and four there was no mention of that personal injury case because he had been this missed by the trial court and the parties themselves really did not know there was an appeal pending and that appeal would take several years well that appeal was happening then even if it was august of two thousand and six were arguing that the courts still the jurisdiction to hear this matter because knowing that there is a case does not mean that there's a change in circumstances it's still an issue because there is no value to the  and i don't believe that attorney had any knowledge of a personal injury lawsuit nothing was disclosed on any you know pretrial documents and it was thought it was not nonexistent because state anything about that p i case it's a thing normal to assume or conclude that neither party knew there was a p r settlement at the time that this disclosure marriage or marital some agreement was is still viable and still pending still existing facts that i did not know about and there is a substantial value to that and said whether or not it was intentionally withheld from me or accidentally with help from me it was withheld from me me joy and nose and i have a right to a fair take that august of two thousand and six and we say there was a subpoena that was sent on this joint knows what knowledge or damage is there at that point what knowledge that she had she has knowledge that there is a p r case that to me a fair and reasonable distribution of the mare last that we're going to remove in this case and we're not going to vacate the judgment well we're going to change the marital selman agreement so that it isn't it will force with the parties intentions that's what we're saying that that's what we're trying to tell or this barrel settlement agreement on its face in two thousand and five would fear now that the court knows that they're in august of two thousand and nine four years later for if yours later there the one engine that argument really is not down it's america last and if it is not mentioned in the mirror some agreement i think the court has jurisdiction until somebody brings it before their attention but there was knowledge of the claim of the injury knowledge of the initial was yet nothing's put in the the whole the whole divorce case is over and nothing is put in them in their worst case and that over two years go no knowledge or knowing weaver of life you don't have that in this case we have is it personal injury lawsuit goes to trial it's tried a directed verdict these entered in favor of the defended my client the wife gives individuals one year to refile cases that they voluntary not see so they lost then count to par that one up on appeal that was denied was sent back and they tried to count one which was the pleased you know can you own gee i wish i knew that that will microsoft's stock is going to get value in the future i think that's what we have here when you look at one in the a she she said she has little she had moved at one point she said she had limited knowledge of the coin at another point she said well i didn't know anything about it there was a divorce to keep her prize that was going on there was a waiver in the green in the judgment or there was a waiver of any claims not specifically put in here yes  phrases it's used i mean she had a lawyer and a worse one got a lawyer when when she thought there was some money there when it finally became worth so i mean even under that kind of birth it's a change in circumstance which is not a basis for to no one and it's not it doesn't say that there was any kind of russian concealments there was no four on her at all it was i didn't think this was worth it i didn't think  look you know let's have some kind of hearing about what did i know and is it on national but it's just careening from here we don't even get that far because once you do this because you didn't appreciate i mean i don't understand how someone can say well i didn't know that i could bring the thing again and then later once the money are saying well then i figure well maybe i can wri anything else that said it's over it's fine and there was no unconscionably just because something became suddenly worth well this isn't a lottery ticket that was purchased talking about it still or that it isn't right because if it's it's different from the discovery that you were injured for example the  on her other statements in which she indicated she had some limited knowledge of the status of the claim at the time of the divorce and that after she got the august subpoena she did not feel that it running her claim was right that she was able to make any kind of