may of two thousand and twelve when a ground order was entered the case was tried over the summer of two thousand and twelve both filed positions statements of not in line that position statement she idea of maintenance and have the right to the home until the youngest child or until her youngest child turned eighteen and in part because one of her children a b has autism the matter was finally resolved in august of two thousand and thirteen after several more court dates the maintenance waiver had to do with the home grown not what had to do with she was not going to get a mom play some money from quark and instead of taking marriage out of clark's family and took a mortgage jointly and they were both on the date so if they wanted to try to sell it he would have the right to match the potential seller's price  to offer her any price that would pay off the mortgage and take it back into his family it's not to find out where it simply says a right of first refusal it said eight thirty one and seen ninety one notably aso manus was not reserved when out wanted to reserve maintenance and a post trial motion but ultimately in the order that her counsel drafted the issue maintenance is not reserved this is the second time you've mentioned the court's order that tells you what do you well any ambiguity in a final judgment or dissolution of marriage because the judgment of dissolution  marriage is like a contract is construed against the drafter well the poem is this is not true or requires this is the order of the court so what side  that the person in the party or the lawyer who submitted it draft order to the court somehow this analysis you just mentioned was absolutely the analysis starts with  court could have also ascertained the intent of the parties however again that's a judgement dissolution marriage case here the party did settle the court signed the judgment of dissolution of marriage and is the last several paragraphs carefully to make sure that we have clarified all of the ambiguity there are wonderful tools out there for us some of them prepared by it all some prepared by by us b a to ensure that we're not  proposed order to day clerks were going to say well judge this is not the ruling that you've indicated you were going to make that move right yes ok entirely neutral there's no question about giving improves the drug he gets through i wouldn't know i wasn't trial counsel in two thousand and twelve and thirteen the way i read it is which the original waiver menas came from her positions payment and then the trial court adopted that and drafted its own order in two thousand and twelve she wished to reserve it and it was ultimately not  korea so what was a right that lynette was given there's no unstressed language in the two thousand and twelve or thirteen water finding that she has a maintenance rather she's given the right to live in the home on the basis of the minor child avi's need minear would say that she would be it would require the water to have something finding i mean some of the five zero four findings that she found able to work to have a maintenance order instead it's a property allocation which is generally not review unless otherwise it's illicit under by tax here it was explicit when the court states it will be reviewed annually you get around the non review because this property rights were not reviewable further one that did way for maintenance rights it was her intent to have a house to live in with ambiguity when she stated repeatedly she did not want mena given to her in her position statement and then abandoned her position out of her post trial motion terminated and maintenance and new maintenance obligation is not appropriate of a dollar amount we want whatever obligation this is of to provide for lynette's living whether it be by paying her propane and her mortgage or by giving her money to terminate it and i think that that is not in errors or nimble for getting a zero so if everybody understands that the court meant to write ten thousand four hundred seventeen dollars the order the oral order reflects that the written order has a blank tan a blank for one seven another proton could be used to supply that zero to amend the order to reflect what was actually does not exist to correct an error in judicial thinking or otherwise modify an order like this some provisions in the original judgments of dissolution the court is only left with the ability to in course that was that which was done to not create new obligation here however we have two new allegations in re marriage math about marriage because i and i think it still does include civil unions i that i can't remember so i apologize on that one however again by when the court s word we ask with t will be determined on this sale in two thousand and seventeen it is basing it on the idea that the value could go up or could go down from two thousand and thirteen to two thousand and seventeen part me mortgage payments contained in the mortgage payments or payments on the principal and later there are some assets that cannot be valued as of the date of dissolution pensions or day one however that is the passive growth of income it will be determined at a later date is not active in contribution by somebody who is a not spouse anymore to make it grow further that's simply the addition of interest and time to make that pension  further by waiving maintenance in two thousand and twelve and thirteen and not reserving that right by killing or doing anything else to preserve her meanness right in two thousand and thirteen and yet being granted one for years after she is married the trial court has said that she has continued to be his spouse only when you have a spouse or civil union can maintenance right you cannot start a new maintenance right when you do not have a spouse court on the did not have properly before the question for child support under five ten to get properly before trial courts for questions of child support were chinese for the must file a proper petition petition is not an answer is an affable petition to put somebody on notice that their rights could be substantially changed there's a reason that our supreme court rules are different from titian's promotion and answers allowing orders it came from the trial court contains relief that were not contemplated by a person they were not notified that these substantial rights would be change and said they are not properly before the court i do object to those coming up today when the chords then turn around when the court issued his child support order it didn't make any indication that there was an actual change of circumstance nor did it reduce a child support order to an actual dollar figure with respect to the attorney's fees there was no analysis done under five zero eight is he right to us to reconsider was they are an obligation i want some form of credit and i want it to stop but i'm not really sure what they are now how is  though it was induced by karr was acting outside of that subject matter jurisdiction it would be no different than ordering to strangers to pay maintenance each other because at that point while they are parents to three children they are fast why legal strangers and without a please the court house counsel your honor i don't want to spend much time on the point you were raised with counsel with regard to the interpretation of that order drafted or signed by the court and rather is held against a grafter but two points number one the gallon time case that she cites in support of the position that the judgment is to be construed strictly or against the draft or absolutely correct right and number two i find no support in the record or even the suggestion that when that's the original trial counsel prepared an order not what i see on the last page of the order is that both attorneys so dramatically change once in a fact he got what he wanted what he wanted was was he wanted the court to interpret its original orbs to provide the net with all right and so essentially more vigorously argued that this was reviewable maybe it can't even count the number of times in position papers pleadings he called this review the possession of the home was an element of reviewable manus which in his counsel's words basically the man that it was tied in to lead that not only a visa officer and her need for continued structured environment but it was tied in to financial assistance to one that because she had a baby and she had the issues with regard all three children plus it was certainly in the nature of maintenance for him to be ordered to pay the mortgage payment now council suggests that maybe she gets some sort of credit for that but it was in the nature of maintenance when we were talking about the equity of the marital home but it's the nature of maintenance he would get of course once you all those can of worms all right when she almost can of worms one possibility is that it's not terminated but it be shifted to a different form a different matter and that's exactly what judge  sometimes you do get what you want you may not like the end result but you get exactly what you want contrary to what the rolling stones sang i'm sorry of sleep about that's why i had to do that last  was in a unique position i think he determined what he actually intended now is some of the wording a little less than what i would have hoped for the answer is yes obviously went on and basically and he also recognized clark's position that he would have the authority to modify reviewable made us and so what he went on to did to do is to do exactly what court park asked him to do  far as the related to make it so he modified became car if you will eventually possession of a real estate ok but that was required to be out of there by august of two thousand and seventeen he terminated he would pay fifteen thousand dollars which interestingly was less than fifty percent of the home if it was warm if it was awarded still a nap then he wanted the right of first refusal in the event she pointed out basically bottom line is what a writer first refusal is is that lynette ever decides to sell her interest in the home park have the right to match that off which basically said that he wanted to force one at our house i'm paraphrasing obviously and that he basically paid her act what he has determined which again his position was and the purpose of that motion find my notice the purpose of that motion is to basically present fine narrowly issues and limit prove the trial and to ensure that the opponent has sufficient  made a substantial difference you know would have affected the outcome no but what the you know we filed that in august two thousand and sixteen and the matter wasn't called up or hearing until october thirty first if clarke objected to the form if you objected to the pleading at all which included as did the original petition it requests for attorney's fees then he could very well that filed a motion  army what was it title i'm sorry what was the pleading title the plane was entitled an answer and at the end of it what i did is i allege further that there'd been a substantial change in circumstance you know or took from a review of all maintenance and i also brought up the court there was also the issue of child support and nothing else was really said at that point on the next time we've gone through the evidence but my exam i specifically was asking him about a savings account because what if it happened even though he had bad point in time i think maybe a little bit later she the where she basically said she objected to it hearing on the issue of child support until the issue of determined that's what she said that's because she felt that there may be some make no so i suppose and she would not be unable to come up with the calculation because we would know what the made this credit would be should be and by the way even though there is no finding of substantial change in circumstance his income from two thousand and eleven to two thousand and twelve adding priest by thirty five thousand dollars a year credit for maintenance and plus recalculating his tax liabilities because the maintenance obviously reduced his income tax responsibilities we actually had a hearing order was three hundred seventy dollars a week and that was based on part of her position paper which calculated based on this i think it's two thousand and the with the credit for broad by the states for any of that county to enforce support the receptionists mother didn't receive any notice of it though pleading so obviously i was a boy and there was no pending pleading regarding factors kids are because the divorce was three years before this but just looking comparatively at the courts at the assets the parties that had ten dollars their checking account whatever interest she had in thirteen thousand dollars resolved back several years before are the other side of point had eleven thousand dollars in his account the i think the court implicitly considered viable for file for back with regard to maintenance as he did that maintenance in the summer two thousand  when the matter came up for hearing on october thirty first two thousand and sixteen the original notice of hearing is found at c one twenty three continued a few times hands but the original new disappearing at c one twenty three only calls up for hearing a titian preview in my vacation rather notices of hearing that are contained before the hearing on october sixth on october thirty first two thousand and sixteen say for their hearing and they which again at the very beginning of the kerry miss day does state what it was know to stop for a hearing on my motion for review and the court says well we're going to take it up on everything that's pending that would include lynette response against her pending her what was filed by lynette in two thousand and sixteen were before for i think it was preserved between our thirty three thirty eight and our reporting where she said well it's just on my notice of hearing it on my motion to look a persons requesting attorney's fees both before and after any court orders for maintenance or child support the trial court is supposed to ask questions of does this person have the ability to pay can they make payments to their attorneys and does the person being requested to pay the attorney's fees have the ability the court didn't ask those questions of the after when it stripped my client far of his financial ability by taking approximately a thousand a week from his and com there were no five zero four findings in two thousand and two thousand and thirteen for maintenance to flow lynette waived it and the trial court cannot create a new maintenance right now between people who are not married