support obligation during that twenty two months as a result the lower court should be reversed there are two main issues here and another issue has been raised by the apple the other thirty two standard of review well dressed that first  do with you yes according to just turn to same ingraining the court always has the authority to abase always have that authority if this case if green didn't exist if the rule didn't exist if think and horn cases did not exist coons would be your ruling case and it stood for the fact that you couldn't accrue during abatement so following that case yes i would lose because it can accrue short of that ruling includes with regard to standard of review the proper standard review here is to know the issues presented contemplate whether the law was correctly applied to the facts the lower court interpreted and applied rule two ninety six after something that took place in two thousand and six we are we get to the court asking for mr hall to be held in indirect civil contempt for not paying his child support we have always held that that child support was due in support of that argument we provided a memorandum of law stating it is due because rule two six green think and horn those three cases we have always held that that money was due we are now asking for a modification if we were asking for a modification then i think the standard would be as stated by the happ the question that it or the report stated in their their order the fact that the court used a bait does not necessarily make it a rule to ninety six of eight i would like to add a little more explanation but the question here is did supreme court rule to ninety six the plight of two thousand and six or law apply to facts as a result it's a question of law and the standard of you should be to know pursuant to supreme court rule to ninety six out and support supporting case on the side if you're in the fourth district michael hall's child support obligation did accrue during the twenty two month period of the pavement and that period should have been limited to six months i do not know the exact number i believe it was in the area of forty five hundred dollars and is that the about the elected on the department's credit in child support payments again i don't recall the exact number but i believe that it came from i have a number from the print outs that we received from the court and that were provided to me by by the state who was representing this whole prior to my ok was there ever a temporary or permanent payment of workers compensation as far as i know i did not leave their wives i believe there was one payment and that w it wasn't forgiven well i think recently decided that it was not and is the answer a question yes one more time the question to my question is this is my understanding of your position correct debts built up that it was supposed to pay but it just wasn't required to pay it or until further order yes ok so the money is still going up put the attorney in charge of the case at that time in contact with his worker's compensation attorney ok now this would be different but i take it from mr hall let's assume something injured at work it necessary that it should be forgiven and it should not occur they should write that in new york what language would then shelter or suspended child support so not a room well to nice except does not apply no knowledge so it's the socially silent they just use the words a big just like in the case of green where they had a line to write the number value for the support they wrote the courts order them back in two thousand and six yes that is the question but because the rule does exist i don't think you can interpret that order as if it does is the issue before this what hurt is wrong how or what what in other words or if there is that the issue clarify what it in in terms of how you stated it prior to the two thousand and six judgement you got green i think you've got those are in the fourth district we're going counties in the fourth district they got up to ninety six exists and has been applied in similar cases in the past with that in mind knowing that this rules have been in fact in effect for sixteen years using the term a bait is enough to imply that it will kill him but more information in there absolutely but i don't think that it's a you have to answer that question through green and through think and clinics that when you use the term a bit just that one word it was enough to for the payments to occur the key here is is the forgiv sign so i believe that someone the judge so as a bait the judge also means a plea in a coupe given the case law that's there in the fourth district yes they should know that all that language just i guess means not they just kind of put it in there you know threw it in there but don't pay attention to it and i don't understand if we hundred ninety i would imagine it's small you know in morgan county that's just something that would get slipped through the cracks in that process that procedure can go and apply wouldn't happen and i think that it would still be in use the bottom line is that it was seven it was one thousand nine hundred ninety when it happened a long time ago that language is still there i have to have meaning it exists i didn't write it because they had extreme but this court hasn't found that way i think if the court finds for our side and reverses that it will provide guidance in the future for everybody who comes upon this situation somebody's going to get hurt there's going to be a strike they're going to ask for support to be taken away and if this case is out there they're going to know what they can do what they need to do exactly what you're saying this is that i've been will hopefully be in their mind i need to put a little more into this order so it doesn't fall to an appellate court that doesn't fall to what did they do let's go back thank you very much the decision which was decided shortly before the advent of rule two ninety six was a well decided case it stands for the general rule that u nder the i am d m a of one's present ability to pay support that is what counts and there are some qualitative differences between going on strike which was the the  it's done in good faith but an injury on the job is certainly not expected it's not fallen terry it's not done by choice and the other  subject to child support group for over a year and a half i think was twenty two months between september of two thousand september of two thousand and six i believe was was when the  suspend the motion to suspend child support was filed and i believe it was twenty two months later that the child support obligation was reinstated but i don't know the exact nature and extent of the injury i don't believe the parties have ever had an argument or dispute over whether the injury was legitimate or  with child support now i can't swear to that unfortunately i was a little bit probably too focused on the legal issues and not not the facts that caused the legal issues and that here stated on in speaking of the limits to the general rule about prison ability pay that there was an exception with a pair of child support secretary says ten thousand dollars of income this year in exchange for that's true i guess and that would be a problem with these folks and remained married they'd have same problem whether you know when a person loses their source of income due to injury it's going to hurt and it's over whether injured which happen here or he's laid off which is the one i asked about it seems to me if you're laid off he looking for work that might be the best argument parent in this case then that pretty much writes the situation but the the point is he wasn't injured with an expectation that he was going to get more money in the future which is why a lot of people go on strike to get pays a percentage of that whatever's determined appropriate to children it would have been twenty percent then and he's done i think all of the law would expect of him he wasn't he's not going to be getting more money under you know when the the court in the in the horn case talks about you know a set sacrificing ten thousand dollars of income one year again twenty thousand dollars the next year that's not and so that's not if i understand your answer you're saying that it's worker's compensation here or very cleaver crude duction for his the president's the children yeah it's my understanding that that's what was contemplated to some level so if he gets thirty thousand dollars for his injury he's going to go back to work your position is twenty eight hundred dollars so it dancing i'm trying not to but if you received in worker's compensation settlement for the time he was off work i think i think that should be treated by a court as net income which is subject to to child support because it's it is retroactively paying him for the time that he wasn't making but there is no automatic part of this i mean the insurance company is going to come a check for ten thousand dollars and then will the course  i'm not a worker's compensation attorney but i think the parties can structure settlement so that a portion of that settlement is for lost wages during the period of the injury and that portion if it's for a lost wages which essentially in my opinion by by op by a law or by court order which is by law which would account for a percentage of that that portion of the largest employers delineation between what's for wast wages and what's for permanent disability then then it would be a percentage of that lump sum amount there would have to be a separation don't these rather well i can only save that with with all due respect and and and deference worker's comp was not one of the issues that was raised on appeal and what happened to the settlement so you know i was i don't know what the worker's comp settlement was for i don't know for a fact that a portion of that was paid over it was a non issue from my perspective and i hate to be backing out like that but the the the whole issue of whether he paid anything from a worker's comp settlement or what that workers comp settlement is we're revisiting that for the and our argument and in a nutshell is that it doesn't apply it wasn't an inherently temporary situation the way of sprightliness it wasn't voluntary which right is it wasn't to try and better your situation in the future the way own argument but i didn't see that is something that we would be addressing i apologize for not being fair to address that today i wasn't involved at the file level and i just didn't see gene issue for purposes voluntary just have a strike in addition he said if the injury went on for over one and a half years we don't know the long history of the injury stop some time before july when my client me back to the court and said he's he's healed he needs to start think child support he didn't come back to the court and say hey i'm better let's start my child support and my client had to find out he lives in quincy she lives in jacksonville somehow and then she came so when that injury stop five hundred dollar payment about the time he got to sell and that is what my client states what was the round of the so i do not know the total amount but i don't believe that that forty five hundred was earmarked anyway for payment during and the numbers don't match what the court did i realize they're at that point you're absolutely right and my first step in this case was get the record and see what i can do with the reason we're here they just want to make sure that there is something and that if you get some money in let us know we need to we need to keep up on this worker's comp case we need to know what is going on if you get some money a g henry wanted to get his hands on it before my hands on it because it would