look at the evidence and say i'm thinking about this in a different way i think the better procedure is for the judge to say whatever's come in this is how i'm thinking about the case i know you're not thinking about this but i'm thinking about this way you write a relief and you write a brief so because it was raised as an alternative road another way you understand that if we agree with your basis i feel it isn't going to be reversed anyway it's going to be a vacation and every man  what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours and it became true the parties time which happened very shortly after the agreement will put into place prior to it and you're going to rehabilitation it became what's mine is mine and andrew wants yours now is ours or maybe mine as well so at the end of the conduct of the parties here by the time to me as you went into rehabilitation which it was about for five months that he was away in the city mr schmidt had total access over his accounts because he had put her name on his account that was so many people wanted to see him as part of the agreement so now the agreement best all of the facts that were necessary and again set forth in our brief and i set forth the long line of pleadings were both times did have an opportunity to engage in who were his sole assets under the agreement big team went under the control of his wife at that time and she then ended up spending down all of his assets to the point that he had perhaps about  hundred thousand laughter maybe last and actually hers went up by counties and i know that council has made this argument in their employees that well she only had ninety four thousand dollars at the time of trial but  to understand that the trial was two years after she had filed for divorce and during that time period mr schmidt had gone through a series of attorneys i know very different attorneys and appeared hundreds of thousands of dollars in and the time we submitted the relevant time period is between january twenty third teen in january twenty fourth teen when she filed for divorce which circuit court itself said was only approximately eleven months after their account again it started out as what's mine is mine it's yours is yours it changed what's my this is mine what's yours is ours at the end of this mr shit basically had nothing that was left in his sole name not i think that it can fairly be characterized that way that they started out with one  that it became more than one lopsided in favor of mr schmidt after it was executed that he called it unfair punitive where is my point if it's seventy four and by the time we get somewhere down schmidt was given an ongoing share of fifty percent of his retirement accounts which also appears to be ongoing for ever she was given already an engagement ring that was not counted and that was about sixty to seventy thousand dollars not counted in the agreement that the agreement also says that she can have maintenance without any good knowledge in it to a core of not only the assets that she received in this agreement that was part of it that saying that the court would have to turn a blind eye to what she  call based upon five retreat for a while you run into a problem with that goal is that counting ability was never an issue in belmont at all that was not an issue in that case so that particular statement of what including the specific requirement that the agreement be ballot that this indicates the intent of the legislature that courts always retain the authority to determine the validity of the agreement including whether they are expenses are going to get paid afterwards so how can we talk about dealing with changing the agreement to make all you would prevent if there wasn't you know remains in the first place that's not what this was which is the point i wanted to emphasize in my opening brief but the