watch that he might ok it's a result of the failure to provide this or as far as the courts determination is concerned the we have conceded in our brief that a motion to substitute and shell's attorney out of the case as a result of a conflict of interest the amount of time that was spent on one is approximately the amount of time it was spent on the other but i nine which is exceedingly small in comparison to the total amount of these costs that were generated as a result of the entire city as far as the dissolution action is concerned i think i would consent that this lucian action all by itself as far as the status of the pardons marriage is concerned in the dispute over that if there was a dispute over that's probably not going to be related to the collection of the sixty four score and the other day and this was at this lucian action where there were no children the end shall was to file essentially an affirmative defense in the body of her answer alleging specifically the obligation that was incurred under the six already of us or and as that matter progress through a marriage but in each of those instances sixty four affidavit of support out there that it posed were the only obligations that were contested between the parties in one of those situations was there ever a case where any other issue was contested in the original as i already mentioned in the original petition for dissolution of marriage it was believed as an affirmative defense in the counterclaim or power petition that was filed  the third party complaint that was filed against vienna pancho it was alleged as a specific claim but the matter proceeded to trial essentially together at least until the dissolution of marriage matter was resolved by agreement between the part imposed and there was no obligation of those in force between the two of them in that particular matter the amount of the fees that were eventually i think extended just specifically related to this illusion of marriage matter were something in the neighborhood thirteen or fourteen hundred dollars and again not it's appreciably significant in the total picture here where approximately sixty five thousand dollars were  their family a place to live after she came to the united states when him all separated from the sheep he filed the petition for dissolution of marriage and his brother at almost exactly the same time whip case that we cited to you in our very as far as the assessment of fees relative to their case is concerned the court should know that and i didn't your record probably is not evidence but we defended that case on the basis of the falsity of charge which is pending the determination of the support case and calls county which we felt that the time was appropriate because if the allegations supporting existed on behalf of the mangina it couldn't it could impose on them the application to during the course of the trial in this case underlined this is just as a matter support for the position although i don't understand it's not correct there was testimony provided by different hand shell that the value of the rental the reasonable value the rental of that particular piece of property with exceeded the amount of the support obligation that his brother his mother had contracted to provide to a group of shell and therefore by extension they should go any additional support obligations and in fact when the jury rendered its determination the jury did offset a certain amount of money from its awar consideration of that provision of that housing it was adjust well i can't tell you the exact number but the jury awarded eighty seven hundred twenty nine dollars and twenty nine cents twenty seven cents as the total damages to which degree pancho was an idol but then reduced that award to sixty four hundred thirty one dollars thirty nine m either basis there was a lot of testimony about the contact that i had had with the referring attorney to chicago and there was a little bit of testimony about the nature of prosecution that's relative to this matter and the review of that record is provided as part of our petition for attorney fees in the case the expense related to each was pretty small compared to the total amount of people that were but the other judgment that was entered the matter was one for specific performance and these are all things that were at least contested during the course of the proceeding that sixty four hundred dollars that was awarded in that case included an offset of something in the neighborhood of fifteen or sixteen hundred dollars as i just mentioned but that was for a period of time for approximately one year's worth of support the obligation to provide support under the i sixty four affidavit is to provide one hundred  twenty five percent of the poverty guideline each year less whatever it is that the immigrant can earn on her own so the total and it extends for a it could extend for a shorter period of time as want but it extends as long as the immigrant i remains a permanent resident of the united states does not become a citizen united states and continues to reside in the united states under that status and that's that period of time can last as long as forty one quarters or ten years i'm sorry four hundred one workers or ten years so that amount of twenty five in this case it's about twenty five i think it's still in the neighborhood of one hundred twenty five percent is about twenty five thousand dollars a year the amount of that whole world over that period of time if the immigrant does not work would be two hundred fifty thousand dollars and that's not the only way to justify the total amount of the attorney fe justified by in this case the resolve and the effort that had been provided when i say that this case was pretty hotly contested from beginning to end i think there were times when mr ban shells in turn may have crossed a line correlation and there could have been between the amount that awarded as attorney fees in the amount that was the the difference being the amount that was worth as attorney and the amount that was discounted the twenty five thousand dollars is just a rough arbitrary figure it doesn't really have anything to do with then it doesn't relate to the total number of hours that were stamped it doesn't relate to the hourly rate doesn't relate to the work that was performed it just says it doesn't have any basis when the record doesn't does include a those or but the bottom line here is that the judge awarded essentially one full year's worth of those or out of those attorneys for this particular party and under the circumstances that's just too much  there would any other really reasonable person come to the same conclusion based on the criteria we have in order to make that decision i don't think so i think that a reasonable person sitting in the same seat the judge right or was sitting  that time knowing that there is a basis to establish the amount of the attorney from the information that's provided on the basis that she wants to assess it would either find a way to have counsel determine what that amount is it presented determine it on her own from the information that was provided now granted as i indicated before our position was that all of the fees that were generated during the entirety of this process were generated as a result of the collection or truly just say twenty five thousand dollars is the number i'm just going to remit this by twenty five thousand dollars doesn't get us to the point that the judge started out which effectively is that the attorney fees are what is being charge that are properly what is being charged less things that shouldn't have been necessarily incurred in the collections or to the judge determine that that amount was twenty five thousand dollars it appears to me that even if we take that position the amount should be something around the neighborhood of seventy five hundred or ten thousand but it is a big obligation and it's a big obligation from the standpoint that misspend child has been effectively  prevent it from receiving a full year's worth of course and if she didn't work at all and maybe longer than that if she had as a result of the judge's decision so what we would ask the court to do under the circumstances either the word the total amount of the attorney fees that were  which the sponsored party sees as a pretty straightforward calculation and because of that there was no need or justification to infuse into the eviction proceedings it's supposed to be straightforward three hundred point five percent of the poverty guidelines find out what the sponsor party is as received an income the difference is what the sponsor has to pay and it's a contractual obligation to the sponsoring this case on a contingency matter where the lawyer was terminated and cal said well we spend about seven hundred twenty dollars representing the current five hundred of which we estimate was spread on behalf of the state opinion there cited fact that we took this into account that into account all of those things and i'm quoting now all of those things were considered and were taken into consideration by the court in fixing the amount of thirty six thousand dollars that was a that case stands for the proposition that there's an affirmative duty on the sponsor the family members have a sponsor to provide housing it doesn't it doesn't fall  thank you oh oh a couple of points with respect to the period of time the first twenty eight months after the original petition for dissolution of marriage was filed in the matter there were only one there there were no s s there were no debts there was no basis for the assessment maintenance under the there was no basis for the assessment of attorney or is it only been married a few months  well including the part of time that the time that we are only about this solution of marriage the status of the dissolution of their marriage because there wasn't anything else to do other than to solve that stands and ultimately the demonstrates there was never a petition to withdraw the petition for dissolution of marriage although two of them are mutually exclusive and as a consequence i guess we had to proceed on both at the time or in respect to the eviction proceeding it was not defended ever on the basis that we were demanding that pickering and shell or any other third party provide housing to group and challenge children it was defended specifically on the basis that in mali in eventual by virtue of the contract between herself and on the head obligated themselves to support ruby and case law that we were so what we requested of the court and will county was either a stay the matter pending the determinations or obligation in coles county and if we ever got to that point we were going to contest the truthfulness of the allegations and the petition but we never got to that point because that matter was resolved by agreement between parties which effectively allowed degree the stay in the residence for that period of time and cost her support by virtue of the fact that that was a benefit that was provided to her that the jury got determined at the trial of the underlying case and they offset the jury offset the value of that amount against the total word of support th i don't i want to be particularly clear because i think it's been we've been directed in a different direction that this was not a claim that picture intentional should have provided for or allowed her to live in his residence after the party separated this is a