fifty dollars a month rather than what he was doing was actually i don't remember the specific amount but it was about five hundred dollars so that the second level parties that the mirror part of the retirement benefit has to be divided equal share between the parties to it wars there i've never seen that i can't imagine that would ever be one of the criteria that has to be it's fifty percent we send it back the trial judge trial judge may say the eleven percent five percent two percent twenty eight percent we don't know but how how can you just can't by this four fifty seven game here at this point when he's not receiving his game change she may never receive anything whether she receives it or not is going to be dependent on how long he continues to work in this case i guess get reelected but how on the continues to work and when he when he guy has i suppose retire and she can't keep him alive after he doesn't need him more so and that place is there there really can't be any here and he made sure that she's going to receive anything that what she already is there any cases that you can cite to is th trial judge can pierce city nor the hunt rule of the two calculations he didn't pick either one and in his theory any justification in the case law for not picking one of the other under a defined benefit point as between the various formulas probably not you know we know that there are two formulas that are used but are they the only two formulas that could possibly be used and is that the only way to arrive at the right answer i a particular bash and i have found anybody else that's ever done exactly that same thing i think there are a lot of cases around it say that a retirement benefit doesn't have to be divided equally between her and the bottom line here is that the judge a house she did not contribute any more to the support of what had been the marital state which was the house itself minor daughter jim support to the extent that he would have required whether that was emotional or financial but she didn't participate in that process and i think it it sounds like you're one hundred percent correct on all that but that that is done in determining what they seem to call the marital in prison percentage and nobody i don't think game basic test suggesting it has to be fi determine what he felt was appropriate she received given what the financial circumstances were burdens since the time that they in his mind determined to go and live a separate life completely independent of one another  to become married to other people in the process and the wire real estate interests and personal property and all kinds of things as though they really didn't have any interest in one another except for the fact that there was a legal bond between them to  broke i'm not suggesting that that there are any and back to divorce that recognized by the board but i'm also wouldn't suggest necessarily that the morris case that's been cited stands for the proposition that this case has to be reversed because that case  any other cases around the deal with the same situation so what i'm what i'm put in the judge harvey good here because we brought that is to his attention and it was argued a whole bunch of times that pretrial and sent him down all kinds of times that  we couldn't argue that there was a de facto divorce but that in the back the parties really didn't have anything more any expectation that they were married after a particular point in time and the question is what did they actually contribute to how did they contribute to the humiliation of that state and that's what the statute is and this is a little bit of a side but i kind of almost felt like there was a bit of a punishment argument with respect to her and have having her benefits about equal footing and it was only the fact that she forfeited that i doing what she did that caused her estate to be substantially diminished and so i think what judge harvey did as you look at the facts of this case was he said to himself that he did directly in his in his or i can say that this is this patient because it didn't happen after the time of the separation but i can look at that conduct and say well how did it affect the state and where would we be had those things not happened that way because they were in fact stre retire tomorrow he she would give four hundred fifty six dollars a month if he retires ten years from now she gets four hundred fifty six dollars a month and still get work that says when she gets to she has to wait ten years in fact what the judge did when he allocated that amount of money to or was he used the present cash value mr isaacs retirement as of the day from that talk about the cost of living increase the three percent and just talk about the four hundred fifty dollars is worth this much this year ten years from now it isn't worth four hundred fifty dollars and she doesn't collect for the ten years and there's no benefit to her with that i mean she gets no he gets a benefit because his pension has gone up and he's back paying her last every year well but he using this nearly won't be paying her less every year because he won't be receiving it during that period of time either she'd here's what happened though with respect to that i think correct that situation is that when was appropriate of the circumstances which was the day the present cash value of the engine determine what he earns interest in that offer and allocate that on a percentage basis on the one against the benefit that was going monthly benefit that was going to be received in time his retirement began i don't i don't know that there's any way to protect against sheriff i see not retiring and i know there's no way to protect against him not dying before he and in both of those cases  allocated it on that basis your honour's i think we've isolated what the issues are here i think that there are some well i'd say just briefly i think there are a couple of misconceptions in the in the record that were identified in the read benefit statement which was included all that because a part of her financial affidavit it was also included as part of ours and it showed that her wings at the time were exactly what we've identified in the brief thirty nine sixty eight forty two a month or about just benefits was exactly what we've described the court took into consideration the fact that there had been a substantial diminution in value of the merit of the state because of what is was done and took it in that situation the fact that she really was not a part  should be something neighborhood of eleven or twelve percent and how is it that hard cooper there's no nothing preventing the trial court from doing there also if he selects one of these two approaches that's true that's exactly true and i think