facially this may appear to be yet another instance where former spouse is unhappy with the trial words determination as to make ends and she gives her fifteen minutes to explain the crown words the has no college degree and she is currently employed as a secretary dr carr's income was two hundred fifty thousand dollars approximately the time of the divorce  car testified that he spent eighty to one hundred hours per week working at the time of the dissolution and since it's been more time than their approximately one hundred hours per week in two thousand and eleven dollars home after the dissolution was entered meanwhile and he retained marital residence which had a value it at the dissolution of two hundred fifty thousand and at the time of the modification hearing it was about two hundred  a general review and whether that should even be a situation that arises the second issue is the interplay through i am in danger to the parties with respect to make the first flies in the face of the legislature's mandate that an order or maintenance may be modified were really needed only on a showing of the substantial change in the circumstances under section five of the justices lonely continues in my refused that it was forty years for it and the marriage was how long thirty two years i think that's relevant according to consider what was asked that she got a divorce i do believe that it is really an abortion because the courts the courts have said that in deciding on a maintenance question one party is not required to deplete her assets in order to support herself and i believe that some more cases cited by gary actually in addition to the cases that we have cited support their position  knowing that she can retire she's working twenty seven thousand dollars a year job at what point is she supposed to be able to be secure and that's one of the other issues that i would like  was inappropriate according to the case law we have first of all the shrimp case that we have cited says that the order in that case the nine the husband's petition at age sixty eight modifying meanings because it relevant factors include his age health and motives as well as the former spouses ability to provide for herself some of the other cases that case cited by gary says that in that in that particular smith case and i believe that throwing this case in line with the wires and age or lack of job skills and lady dreamed of the job market the court decided there should yes and what about the two hundred fifty thousand dollars house is there any equity in that i believe there are there is equity in the house but what are we talking i think if i'm not mistaken i don't believe that there was a morning there's no mortgage  the border should not have been tied to a specific age which was north korea just also posed a question about permanent maintenance he says when i read about cases about permanent that judge weber's order modifying the meekness should be reversed and the means should be permanent maintenance and it should last until such time as gary hart is able to working trying to pay off that four hundred fifty thousand dollars mortgage ten years from now and making three hundred fifty four hundred and then have a wife getting zero i don't think it's sure to be retiring and that played on case says it doesn't have to be specifically said on the day q b on the trial court anticipate based on the evidence before it when that was  change of circumstances so i understand the argument but i i think you completely misrepresent the state of the law as said or in the past or days analyzing the gold so i would custer to say that you don't have to prove a substantial change in circumstances when the trial court set a review but after review in order to modify it there has to be a substantial changes or else i would agree with that if what he just asked me is between now and december first of two thousand and fifteen and at the are going to court and ask for a change in the amount of money between now and the combination i think she would have proved a substantial change in circumstances because now we're outside that we're not we're no longer under the court's review of temporary maids order we have our outside of substantial change of circumstances or it shouldn't change it should just go right by the order but up to this point up until he makes his pronouncements on in september of two thousand and eleven i think he simply is obligated to continue to consider the factors under five or five kids does not have to specifically go through each of them in his record and as long as the record supports it but even if there is a four thousand dollars in retirement and the judge made a specific finding that he recognized that she's now in an age where she will be able to start growing without you know the problem of those retirement and he's as far as we know he still that is pretty you know high level lifestyle and he's still working on hundred hours a week and the snow is deteriorating could stop any these people as far as what their lifestyle your expenditures what their motives were and he he continues to work in a way because he has a living his lifestyle can be no indication of fall back on sure dr clark could continue to not want to save money because he could fall having a general review of this order makes it all seem to be a temporary order because it can be reviewed at a later date with no showing of substantial change in the circumstances in fact judge or wherever almost maintenance even under the realm of the general review the means paintings could be yet the same could be increased the priest terminated or could change the terms of the faith and that side on page four hundred seventy